I'm not kidding. That was a simple question, even if it might have a complex answer. As demonstrated by the question about Oracle's (expected) contribution, against which to measure the two in the inevitable competition between RedHat and Oracle on "who's more valuable to 'Linux'?"
A question you didn't answer. I know how RedHat works. Since you work there, maybe you know how many LoC or some other benchmark we can use in this comparison.
Otherwise it's just going to be a pissing contest among holywarriors, a road down which I tried not to start.
The (informal, but recognized) security protocol is for the hole discoverer to notify the hole owner of the hole privately. It's a communication process between the researcher and the owner that protects them both. There might be a good case for a researcher publishing a demo exploit of a publicly identified hole, in the interest of the security - the main interest. But the interest of the relationship between the researcher and the owner is served by the researcher notifying the owner privately. This primarily forces the owner to act, if they have not. The power of a Democratic senator to make the TSA act, under the Republican government that recreated it over the past 5 years, is less than the power of a private researcher with the threat of going public, now that the Republican popularity is going down the tubes.
So if Soghoian didn't notify the TSA himself, he shouldn't be surprised they counterattacked him, rather than fix the hole, even if the hole was already revealed by a Senator. It's of course wrong, but Soghoian could have decreased his risk by following the usual protocol.
Soghoian might actually have done so. We don't know, because reporting on these matters is even worse than their execution by TSA and other security agencies, the government in general. But if he didn't, that might explain the results. If he did, the results are still unsurprising, though even more disappointing, because we know this government is broken.
This entire episode does reveal exactly what Soghoian makes his most important point: the TSA trades in simcurity, "security theater", not security. My point is that real security includes the transactions between the people involved, including those publishing exploit demos and those owning the hole.
Criticism from an Anonymous LYING FOOL Coward of the Republican corporate mass media finally caving to the overwhelming public pressure to get rid of Bush. You Republican zombies are dumb as dirt - you don't even know you're already dead.
"It is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government."
It's not the government's job to decide our rights. We have rights, they are inalienable. It's the government's job to protect our rights. Protect our rights from corporations which would ignore or destroy them for a buck, or the power to make a buck. And we create our government to protect our rights. Our job is creating and perpetuating that government.
When the founders of the US specified the rights we have that the government would protect, they also made a compromise with the existing economy. The government would promote "the progress of science and useful arts" by granting temporary monopolies - exclusive rights - to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. This limitation on freedom of others to copy and use writings and inventions was necessary in the late 1700s, and for many years after. But as the centuries have progressed, those writings and inventions have changed the economy so that "the progress of science and useful arts" is better promoted by more copying, not less. Even if temporary monopolies like copyrights and patents are still necessary, they are necessary for much less time than before. Instead, those monopolies are now extended for much more time, totally unjustified by any necessity to "promote progress".
The original time set in the 1790s was 17 years, a human generation. The next generation that grew up with the writings and inventions could, by the time they became adults and likely started having their own children, use those writings and inventions freely. Writings and inventions passed into the folk art, the folk consciousness, the folk wisdom, the folk heritage, for everyone to use. By which time, most of the value, especially of the writings, was delivered not by the author, but by the audience, the consumers, the people using it and perpetuating it. And any honest author will tell you that the process of adoption of their writings by their people is the most powerful promotion of their useful art.
Maybe the Internet has changed things, along with the rest of communications, manufacturing and distribution tech over the past 200 years. If anything, the lifecycle of content is much shorter before it's "old", either folklore or just obsolete. Likewise with most inventions. The length of copyright and patent exclusion should be, if anything, shorter - maybe 8-10 years, maybe 2-5. Maybe different for different kinds of "writing", whether a news article or an opera. But certainly promotion of progress is much more hurt now by these monopolies.
We still have control over our governments. Except when we ignore that control, and corporations and other greedy monopolists move into the power vacuum. If we don't create governments to protect our rights, we're creating ones to destroy them.
Well I kinda figured that the upgrader needs disk space to use it for storage. But why does it need to download everything first, just to delete most of it, rather than cycle that process against a smaller cache? If it were a few megabytes, or even a few hundred, OK, but a gigabyte? Why should I keep that much extra space on my notebook just for upgrade working room?
OK, the most important advice is how to uninstall a failed "upgrade" to Edgy. If the failed upgrade leaves the network, terminal console, network and disks intact, how to roll back to a working 5.10 install? Without wiping the machine, and losing unique data?
Apple changed the world with their codification of UI design in the 1980s. One fundamental principle of that design is that all UI widgets must interact with the user "immediately" (< 300ms), providing feedback. Users don't just interact with the code executing the app logic - we interact with the widget, which must change state to indicate we've interacted with it. The clickwheel seemed to interact on the screen, making sounds, even though the wheel itself was inert. I hope they can pull it off with a new unconventional UI device.
For one, Cheney already acts as the president, but without having to go in front of the cameras. Putting him in the president's seat would screw up his game quite a lot. And the incoming VP would get to use all the power Cheney created in that office - without being "on board" as much as were the pair of Bush/Cheney. That new VP could be Hastert, Speaker of the House, but Hastert's gone from that gig, probably either voted out or impeached - at least resigned. If Democrats take the House as expected, a Democrat would be the Speaker, and take the VP chair with all its Cheney power. That sounds like a good way to keep Cheney from hiding in the bunker doing crimes.
Besides, we should impeach Cheney, too. He's an even bigger criminal than Bush, and more hated.
No, the Democrats are in the minority. So they have no power. Not just under the usual system where the majority Republicans control all the committees, though they have only a bare majority. But because those Republican committees don't even let Democrats read the hundreds of pages of bills up for vote until hours before the vote. They often don't even announce the vote until the day before. They don't let Democrats insert amendments anywhere in the process. Over 80% of Democratic bills, amendments and motions were defeated by a Republican majority this year. Of course, Republicans include each other on the entire process. And of course they have Republican lobbyists from their bribing^Wsponsoring corporations write the bills that Republicans vote through Congress.
Meanwhile, Democrats have to make deals to get scraps to send home to their constituents and the rest of the country. Republicans attack Democrats as traitors and worse whenever there's any Democratic opposition getting any traction. The Congress has never been run this partisan before, even to the point of Republicans rewriting centuries-honored rules to block Democrats from any minority rights. Just last year Republicans tried to rip out the fillibuster rules, because they were shoving judges through the Senate without making them answer questions.
There are lots of incumbent Democrats who are useless or worse. In every case of which I know, their Republican opponent is much worse - and part of the Republican gang abusing Congress. Throwing out the Democrats will just leave Republicans with even less to worry about as they screw us.
The tide starts turning with the first reversal in direction. You can give up if you want, but that only guarantees the bad guys win. You won't talk me into your fatalism.
"This stage of the game" is pretty late. If you don't know what to do by now, even if you're wrong, you're useless.
Bullshit. Blanco registered her State of Emergency before the storm. NM Governor Richardson did his legal requirements to send his National Guard to supplement the LA Guard, with over 25% of the LA Guard (and lots of its equipment) bogged down in Bush's Iraq. Bush sat on the required presidential OK for a week, until days after the storm. In the meantime, he used his holding back required approval to blackmail Blanco, trying to get her to let him federalize all the troops, putting them under his power. Even though he was obviously working against LA and its dying people.
Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap.
After Katrina, most of you lying Republican Bushworshippers snapped out of it - at least stopped pretending that any of the rest of us believe your bullshit any more. Note this: you and your lies are keeping in power the worst president ever, and letting him get away with pushing us from freedom to tyranny. You make me sick.
During Katrina, the (Democratic) New Mexico governor (Richardson) tried to send his National Guards to Louisiana, offering help formally accepted by the (Democratic) Louisiana governor (Blanco). All kinds of laws require not only both governors to agree, along with legal requirements they do other things (declare official emergencies, try other things first), but also require that the president OK the plan. Otherwise it's an invasion: one scenario has an unpopular governor supported by a "foreign" governor accepting troops from out of state to put down "revolts" that the local National Guards would not attack. It's the kind of problem that China's mafia government uses to abuse its people, like after the Tiennamen Square revolt, when rural troops were brought into Beijing to shoot people who the local troops wouldn't have shot.
Bush did not give his OK for a week. The OK arrived on Thursday, although the NM/LA offers/acceptances were all completed by the Friday before - the storm hit on Sunday, the flood on Monday. The catastrophe was all over TV by Tuesday, but Bush didn't send the OK until Thursday. Meanwhile, he was trying to force LA Governor Blanco to allow Bush to "federalize" the LA National Guard (about 25% of which was busy in Bush's Iraq, along with lots of their equipment). Federalizing is rare, puts Bush in control of the state's Guard, and keeps the governor from controlling anything that happens next. Bush was blackmailing Blanco by withholding NM Guard while Louisiana was drowning. Bush's "control" of the rest of the catastrophe gave even more reason not to allow federalization. And the past year has shown just how wise were our American predecessors who not only made laws standing in the way of that power grab, but also those who didn't cave in to the kind of terrorism Bush is using to scare people into giving him that power.
Bush is using these disasters to justify a power grab. The "winter storms" are BS. Bush wants more power. Especially if his Republicans keep their hold on power with another rigged election, but this time Americans go nuts because the margin's too large to cover with machines, or the story gets out, or we've just had too much bullshit from these criminals. Or if Bush gets impeached, but doesn't cooperate. Or if any of a number of things happen in Bush's two final years without a Republican Congress, and Bush needs to wield power without anyone getting in the way.
Let's not hear more Bush spin about the weather. That mobster is stil denying the Greenhouse - any move to grab martial law power at the same time is an obvious move towards... martial law.
What, the "A well-regulated ['supplied'] militia being necessary to the defense of a free state" reason that the Constitution says?
We don't do militias - we have a huge standing army. Not only would it crush any of your neighborhood's weekend-warrior paintballers in exactly the kind of action Bush just signed this law to protect. But your puny militia would give the government troops the excuse to shoot everyone, just like they're doing in Iraq.
Why don't you just go ahead and vote out the Republicans you voted in, who passed this law, among others destroying the country? Or are you just looking for an excuse to shoot someone, before going out in a blaze of glory?
During the Katrina Flood who was saying that "Federal Troops should have been in Lousiania on Day one"? Let's have a citation for that assertion. Where are these "mostly Democrats"?
The fact, unaddled by "hapless Democrats" nonsense, is that the (Democrat) governor of Louisiana, Blanco, accepted an offer from the (Democrat) governor of New Mexico, Richardson, for NM National Guard troops to come into LA. The National Guard is very much not Federal, they're under control of their state's governor. But even so, if National Guard are to cross state lines, not only must the incoming governor request or accept an offer, with other legal restrictions (such as declaring official emergencies, etc, which trigger other actions). Also, the president must officially receive the offer from (in this case) NM, ensure it's legal, send it to LA for confirmation. Otherwise, a governor could fight a war in their own state with out of state troops, even if their in-state Guard troops refuse - the president is responsible for ensuring that doesn't happen.
In the case of Katrina, LA made the declarations, NM made the offer, and LA said it would accept, all before the storm hit. Then NM and LA had to wait for the president to process the request. Which, in this case, was an obvious case for doing it right away - within minutes, or maybe hours.
Instead, Bush sat on the legal papers for a week. The NM troops couldn't go into LA, or it would legally be an invasion. Do you think the fact that both governors trying to send in the Guard were Democrats had anything to do with Bush's decision? While he waited, he tried to instead get LA to agree that he could "Federalize" all the Guard troops, LA and NM. A rarely used provision, that would take the governors out of control of their troops, and put Bush in charge. We see what that kind of "Bush is in charge" control did to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
Now Bush has taken that power anyway. And lost New Orleans (and hundreds of miles of the rest of the Gulf Coast) to Katrina. And killed thousands of Guards in Iraq.
Bush is even more evil than you say. And it's got nothing to do with "Democrats". It's all Bush and his Republican gang. Turning America into the kind of state our old Soviet Russian and Chinese enemies would envy.
We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.
The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.
You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.
But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.
We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.
The W3C should release updated "HTML" specs only with both reference code for parsing, any state-setting, and any rendering, and validator with UI to test HTML for compliance.
UA makers should be able to submit to the W3C new proposed specs with both reference code and validator.
HTML versions should be date/timestamped, and validated between UA and server.
That kind of open, but moderated and encapsulated process will help ensure new specs are not only workable, but distributed to all UA makers (and programmers targeting them) uniformly. UA makers can produce their own code, as long as their HTML validates and the state/rendering results are consistent with the reference results.
A faster, more open, more comprehensive process. More uniform upgrades, more compliant/working websites, less programmers targeting specific browsers "because they work".
I would call out "the Linux developers", if my Debian or Ubuntu kernels ever caused me that kind of problem. Of course, Linux is not a $MULTIBILLION corporation, even over at RedHat, like Microsoft is. And kernel releases aren't the same as the Vista release.
The Microsoft model is supposedly to release new OS'es every few years, after rigorous internal testing of their proprietary code. This bug episode shows that model is not reliable - they obviously don't test enough internally before releasing even a beta to outside developers/testers.
Let's have a sense of proportion. Microsoft has a model whose money depends on insecurities and bugs to force upgrades every few years. Linux has lots of different models, the main one being frequent releases of code that interested people can fix ourselves. Not a good comparison, especially when considering the stakes: 95% of computers running MS, maybe 1-5% running Linux.
Markey is a fool to call for the arrest or shutdown of an author of a tool whose work could be easily duplicated without him. The TSA is a joke, as anyone with any real security skills and honesty will tell you.
But none of the coverage, including Soghoian's own posts, indicate whether Soghoian notified anyone responsible for the security whose holes he exposed of the hole privately, before he publicly released his tools.
The well-established protocol for publishing security breaches is to privately notify the target first, giving them time to fix the problem, before increasing the risk by giving everyone the same power to break the security. In the real world, obscurity does sometimes provide some security for a while. Leaving it in place while the target works to fix the hole offers a little more protection, when any little bit counts. Of course, Soghoian should have given them a deadline for indicating either progress or completion, depending on the nature of the risk, as a way to force them to act. We don't know whether he did either.
There is little to lose by notifying the TSA or other security people responsible for these holes, and waiting some short time before forcing their hand publicly. And much to gain: the bureaucracy is now headed down the wrong direction, which takes more time to change and begin on the right one. Soghoian is not responsible for the bureaucracy, but an American adult security pro should expect that at least someone in Congress will overreact in favor of the security theater Soghoian is targeting, rather than real security fixes.
If Soghoian did indeed notify the TSA, then Markey has no excuse, and is a perfect fool. Even if he doesn't know about such a notification, he should know before shooting off his mouth in public, scaring the security pros who are working to keep him and everyone else safe.
What we need to know is the full story, as usual, before we're sure who's wrong and who's not so wrong.
That kind of bug isn't acceptable in a "beta". Even if you use the convenient misdefinition of "beta" to mean "crude, but public, test release".
The real meaning, "test release to testers not part of the development team", shows an even more unacceptable test process.
Tests, alpha/beta/release or otherwise, aren't "anything goes" affairs. Especially when the stakes are as high as the Vista release. And when past experience shows us the certainty that MS will release software with serious bugs that cost us all a lot of time, money and grief. Except MS, which benefits from bug releases.
So no apologies for yet another screwup proving Microsoft's commitment to arbitrary quality, and earliest shipping dates.
I've been inside many $MULTIBILLION corporations, and several North American multimillion-citizen governments. The ones I work with don't run rollouts on the scale of this Vista release like this "abortion" (the technical term). Not while I'm running the job, anyway.
FWIW, NASA had a metric/imperial unit conflict one time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not kidding. That was a simple question, even if it might have a complex answer. As demonstrated by the question about Oracle's (expected) contribution, against which to measure the two in the inevitable competition between RedHat and Oracle on "who's more valuable to 'Linux'?"
A question you didn't answer. I know how RedHat works. Since you work there, maybe you know how many LoC or some other benchmark we can use in this comparison.
Otherwise it's just going to be a pissing contest among holywarriors, a road down which I tried not to start.
Fragmentation? I thought ext3 didn't get fragmented (somehow). Is there a defrag util?
Downgrade a failed Edgy 6.10 "upgrade" down to Dapper 6.04?
The (informal, but recognized) security protocol is for the hole discoverer to notify the hole owner of the hole privately. It's a communication process between the researcher and the owner that protects them both. There might be a good case for a researcher publishing a demo exploit of a publicly identified hole, in the interest of the security - the main interest. But the interest of the relationship between the researcher and the owner is served by the researcher notifying the owner privately. This primarily forces the owner to act, if they have not. The power of a Democratic senator to make the TSA act, under the Republican government that recreated it over the past 5 years, is less than the power of a private researcher with the threat of going public, now that the Republican popularity is going down the tubes.
So if Soghoian didn't notify the TSA himself, he shouldn't be surprised they counterattacked him, rather than fix the hole, even if the hole was already revealed by a Senator. It's of course wrong, but Soghoian could have decreased his risk by following the usual protocol.
Soghoian might actually have done so. We don't know, because reporting on these matters is even worse than their execution by TSA and other security agencies, the government in general. But if he didn't, that might explain the results. If he did, the results are still unsurprising, though even more disappointing, because we know this government is broken.
This entire episode does reveal exactly what Soghoian makes his most important point: the TSA trades in simcurity, "security theater", not security. My point is that real security includes the transactions between the people involved, including those publishing exploit demos and those owning the hole.
Criticism from an Anonymous LYING FOOL Coward of the Republican corporate mass media finally caving to the overwhelming public pressure to get rid of Bush.
You Republican zombies are dumb as dirt - you don't even know you're already dead.
"It is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government."
It's not the government's job to decide our rights. We have rights, they are inalienable. It's the government's job to protect our rights. Protect our rights from corporations which would ignore or destroy them for a buck, or the power to make a buck. And we create our government to protect our rights. Our job is creating and perpetuating that government.
When the founders of the US specified the rights we have that the government would protect, they also made a compromise with the existing economy. The government would promote "the progress of science and useful arts" by granting temporary monopolies - exclusive rights - to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. This limitation on freedom of others to copy and use writings and inventions was necessary in the late 1700s, and for many years after. But as the centuries have progressed, those writings and inventions have changed the economy so that "the progress of science and useful arts" is better promoted by more copying, not less. Even if temporary monopolies like copyrights and patents are still necessary, they are necessary for much less time than before. Instead, those monopolies are now extended for much more time, totally unjustified by any necessity to "promote progress".
The original time set in the 1790s was 17 years, a human generation. The next generation that grew up with the writings and inventions could, by the time they became adults and likely started having their own children, use those writings and inventions freely. Writings and inventions passed into the folk art, the folk consciousness, the folk wisdom, the folk heritage, for everyone to use. By which time, most of the value, especially of the writings, was delivered not by the author, but by the audience, the consumers, the people using it and perpetuating it. And any honest author will tell you that the process of adoption of their writings by their people is the most powerful promotion of their useful art.
Maybe the Internet has changed things, along with the rest of communications, manufacturing and distribution tech over the past 200 years. If anything, the lifecycle of content is much shorter before it's "old", either folklore or just obsolete. Likewise with most inventions. The length of copyright and patent exclusion should be, if anything, shorter - maybe 8-10 years, maybe 2-5. Maybe different for different kinds of "writing", whether a news article or an opera. But certainly promotion of progress is much more hurt now by these monopolies.
We still have control over our governments. Except when we ignore that control, and corporations and other greedy monopolists move into the power vacuum. If we don't create governments to protect our rights, we're creating ones to destroy them.
Well I kinda figured that the upgrader needs disk space to use it for storage. But why does it need to download everything first, just to delete most of it, rather than cycle that process against a smaller cache? If it were a few megabytes, or even a few hundred, OK, but a gigabyte? Why should I keep that much extra space on my notebook just for upgrade working room?
OK, the most important advice is how to uninstall a failed "upgrade" to Edgy. If the failed upgrade leaves the network, terminal console, network and disks intact, how to roll back to a working 5.10 install? Without wiping the machine, and losing unique data?
Why the hell does an upgrade from the Net require a gigabyte of free disk space?
Apple changed the world with their codification of UI design in the 1980s. One fundamental principle of that design is that all UI widgets must interact with the user "immediately" (< 300ms), providing feedback. Users don't just interact with the code executing the app logic - we interact with the widget, which must change state to indicate we've interacted with it. The clickwheel seemed to interact on the screen, making sounds, even though the wheel itself was inert. I hope they can pull it off with a new unconventional UI device.
For one, Cheney already acts as the president, but without having to go in front of the cameras. Putting him in the president's seat would screw up his game quite a lot. And the incoming VP would get to use all the power Cheney created in that office - without being "on board" as much as were the pair of Bush/Cheney. That new VP could be Hastert, Speaker of the House, but Hastert's gone from that gig, probably either voted out or impeached - at least resigned. If Democrats take the House as expected, a Democrat would be the Speaker, and take the VP chair with all its Cheney power. That sounds like a good way to keep Cheney from hiding in the bunker doing crimes.
Besides, we should impeach Cheney, too. He's an even bigger criminal than Bush, and more hated.
No, the Democrats are in the minority. So they have no power. Not just under the usual system where the majority Republicans control all the committees, though they have only a bare majority. But because those Republican committees don't even let Democrats read the hundreds of pages of bills up for vote until hours before the vote. They often don't even announce the vote until the day before. They don't let Democrats insert amendments anywhere in the process. Over 80% of Democratic bills, amendments and motions were defeated by a Republican majority this year. Of course, Republicans include each other on the entire process. And of course they have Republican lobbyists from their bribing^Wsponsoring corporations write the bills that Republicans vote through Congress.
Meanwhile, Democrats have to make deals to get scraps to send home to their constituents and the rest of the country. Republicans attack Democrats as traitors and worse whenever there's any Democratic opposition getting any traction. The Congress has never been run this partisan before, even to the point of Republicans rewriting centuries-honored rules to block Democrats from any minority rights. Just last year Republicans tried to rip out the fillibuster rules, because they were shoving judges through the Senate without making them answer questions.
There are lots of incumbent Democrats who are useless or worse. In every case of which I know, their Republican opponent is much worse - and part of the Republican gang abusing Congress. Throwing out the Democrats will just leave Republicans with even less to worry about as they screw us.
If you'd bothered to click on the link I helpfully offered, you'd have seen that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached.
Your laughter is the hysterics of a demented raver who can't distinguish reality.
The tide starts turning with the first reversal in direction. You can give up if you want, but that only guarantees the bad guys win. You won't talk me into your fatalism.
"This stage of the game" is pretty late. If you don't know what to do by now, even if you're wrong, you're useless.
Bullshit. Blanco registered her State of Emergency before the storm. NM Governor Richardson did his legal requirements to send his National Guard to supplement the LA Guard, with over 25% of the LA Guard (and lots of its equipment) bogged down in Bush's Iraq. Bush sat on the required presidential OK for a week, until days after the storm. In the meantime, he used his holding back required approval to blackmail Blanco, trying to get her to let him federalize all the troops, putting them under his power. Even though he was obviously working against LA and its dying people.
Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap.
After Katrina, most of you lying Republican Bushworshippers snapped out of it - at least stopped pretending that any of the rest of us believe your bullshit any more. Note this: you and your lies are keeping in power the worst president ever, and letting him get away with pushing us from freedom to tyranny. You make me sick.
During Katrina, the (Democratic) New Mexico governor (Richardson) tried to send his National Guards to Louisiana, offering help formally accepted by the (Democratic) Louisiana governor (Blanco). All kinds of laws require not only both governors to agree, along with legal requirements they do other things (declare official emergencies, try other things first), but also require that the president OK the plan. Otherwise it's an invasion: one scenario has an unpopular governor supported by a "foreign" governor accepting troops from out of state to put down "revolts" that the local National Guards would not attack. It's the kind of problem that China's mafia government uses to abuse its people, like after the Tiennamen Square revolt, when rural troops were brought into Beijing to shoot people who the local troops wouldn't have shot.
Bush did not give his OK for a week. The OK arrived on Thursday, although the NM/LA offers/acceptances were all completed by the Friday before - the storm hit on Sunday, the flood on Monday. The catastrophe was all over TV by Tuesday, but Bush didn't send the OK until Thursday. Meanwhile, he was trying to force LA Governor Blanco to allow Bush to "federalize" the LA National Guard (about 25% of which was busy in Bush's Iraq, along with lots of their equipment). Federalizing is rare, puts Bush in control of the state's Guard, and keeps the governor from controlling anything that happens next. Bush was blackmailing Blanco by withholding NM Guard while Louisiana was drowning. Bush's "control" of the rest of the catastrophe gave even more reason not to allow federalization. And the past year has shown just how wise were our American predecessors who not only made laws standing in the way of that power grab, but also those who didn't cave in to the kind of terrorism Bush is using to scare people into giving him that power.
Bush is using these disasters to justify a power grab. The "winter storms" are BS. Bush wants more power. Especially if his Republicans keep their hold on power with another rigged election, but this time Americans go nuts because the margin's too large to cover with machines, or the story gets out, or we've just had too much bullshit from these criminals. Or if Bush gets impeached, but doesn't cooperate. Or if any of a number of things happen in Bush's two final years without a Republican Congress, and Bush needs to wield power without anyone getting in the way.
Let's not hear more Bush spin about the weather. That mobster is stil denying the Greenhouse - any move to grab martial law power at the same time is an obvious move towards... martial law.
What, the "A well-regulated ['supplied'] militia being necessary to the defense of a free state" reason that the Constitution says?
We don't do militias - we have a huge standing army. Not only would it crush any of your neighborhood's weekend-warrior paintballers in exactly the kind of action Bush just signed this law to protect. But your puny militia would give the government troops the excuse to shoot everyone, just like they're doing in Iraq.
Why don't you just go ahead and vote out the Republicans you voted in, who passed this law, among others destroying the country? Or are you just looking for an excuse to shoot someone, before going out in a blaze of glory?
During the Katrina Flood who was saying that "Federal Troops should have been in Lousiania on Day one"? Let's have a citation for that assertion. Where are these "mostly Democrats"?
The fact, unaddled by "hapless Democrats" nonsense, is that the (Democrat) governor of Louisiana, Blanco, accepted an offer from the (Democrat) governor of New Mexico, Richardson, for NM National Guard troops to come into LA. The National Guard is very much not Federal, they're under control of their state's governor. But even so, if National Guard are to cross state lines, not only must the incoming governor request or accept an offer, with other legal restrictions (such as declaring official emergencies, etc, which trigger other actions). Also, the president must officially receive the offer from (in this case) NM, ensure it's legal, send it to LA for confirmation. Otherwise, a governor could fight a war in their own state with out of state troops, even if their in-state Guard troops refuse - the president is responsible for ensuring that doesn't happen.
In the case of Katrina, LA made the declarations, NM made the offer, and LA said it would accept, all before the storm hit. Then NM and LA had to wait for the president to process the request. Which, in this case, was an obvious case for doing it right away - within minutes, or maybe hours.
Instead, Bush sat on the legal papers for a week. The NM troops couldn't go into LA, or it would legally be an invasion. Do you think the fact that both governors trying to send in the Guard were Democrats had anything to do with Bush's decision? While he waited, he tried to instead get LA to agree that he could "Federalize" all the Guard troops, LA and NM. A rarely used provision, that would take the governors out of control of their troops, and put Bush in charge. We see what that kind of "Bush is in charge" control did to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
Now Bush has taken that power anyway. And lost New Orleans (and hundreds of miles of the rest of the Gulf Coast) to Katrina. And killed thousands of Guards in Iraq.
Bush is even more evil than you say. And it's got nothing to do with "Democrats". It's all Bush and his Republican gang. Turning America into the kind of state our old Soviet Russian and Chinese enemies would envy.
We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.
The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.
You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.
But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.
We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.
Not a minute too soon.
The W3C should release updated "HTML" specs only with both reference code for parsing, any state-setting, and any rendering, and validator with UI to test HTML for compliance.
UA makers should be able to submit to the W3C new proposed specs with both reference code and validator.
HTML versions should be date/timestamped, and validated between UA and server.
That kind of open, but moderated and encapsulated process will help ensure new specs are not only workable, but distributed to all UA makers (and programmers targeting them) uniformly. UA makers can produce their own code, as long as their HTML validates and the state/rendering results are consistent with the reference results.
A faster, more open, more comprehensive process. More uniform upgrades, more compliant/working websites, less programmers targeting specific browsers "because they work".
I would call out "the Linux developers", if my Debian or Ubuntu kernels ever caused me that kind of problem. Of course, Linux is not a $MULTIBILLION corporation, even over at RedHat, like Microsoft is. And kernel releases aren't the same as the Vista release.
The Microsoft model is supposedly to release new OS'es every few years, after rigorous internal testing of their proprietary code. This bug episode shows that model is not reliable - they obviously don't test enough internally before releasing even a beta to outside developers/testers.
Let's have a sense of proportion. Microsoft has a model whose money depends on insecurities and bugs to force upgrades every few years. Linux has lots of different models, the main one being frequent releases of code that interested people can fix ourselves. Not a good comparison, especially when considering the stakes: 95% of computers running MS, maybe 1-5% running Linux.
Markey is a fool to call for the arrest or shutdown of an author of a tool whose work could be easily duplicated without him. The TSA is a joke, as anyone with any real security skills and honesty will tell you.
But none of the coverage, including Soghoian's own posts, indicate whether Soghoian notified anyone responsible for the security whose holes he exposed of the hole privately, before he publicly released his tools.
The well-established protocol for publishing security breaches is to privately notify the target first, giving them time to fix the problem, before increasing the risk by giving everyone the same power to break the security . In the real world, obscurity does sometimes provide some security for a while. Leaving it in place while the target works to fix the hole offers a little more protection, when any little bit counts. Of course, Soghoian should have given them a deadline for indicating either progress or completion, depending on the nature of the risk, as a way to force them to act. We don't know whether he did either.
There is little to lose by notifying the TSA or other security people responsible for these holes, and waiting some short time before forcing their hand publicly. And much to gain: the bureaucracy is now headed down the wrong direction, which takes more time to change and begin on the right one. Soghoian is not responsible for the bureaucracy, but an American adult security pro should expect that at least someone in Congress will overreact in favor of the security theater Soghoian is targeting, rather than real security fixes.
If Soghoian did indeed notify the TSA, then Markey has no excuse, and is a perfect fool. Even if he doesn't know about such a notification, he should know before shooting off his mouth in public, scaring the security pros who are working to keep him and everyone else safe.
What we need to know is the full story, as usual, before we're sure who's wrong and who's not so wrong.
That kind of bug isn't acceptable in a "beta". Even if you use the convenient misdefinition of "beta" to mean "crude, but public, test release".
The real meaning, "test release to testers not part of the development team", shows an even more unacceptable test process.
Tests, alpha/beta/release or otherwise, aren't "anything goes" affairs. Especially when the stakes are as high as the Vista release. And when past experience shows us the certainty that MS will release software with serious bugs that cost us all a lot of time, money and grief. Except MS, which benefits from bug releases.
So no apologies for yet another screwup proving Microsoft's commitment to arbitrary quality, and earliest shipping dates.
Six word replies win the contest.
I've been inside many $MULTIBILLION corporations, and several North American multimillion-citizen governments. The ones I work with don't run rollouts on the scale of this Vista release like this "abortion" (the technical term). Not while I'm running the job, anyway.
FWIW, NASA had a metric/imperial unit conflict one time.