Al-Quaeda isn't a nationality. It's a religious affiliation. My point was that Iraqi's are targeted by Al Quaeda as much as Westerners are which blows the argument that they are trying to protect Iraqi's out of the water.
I'm going to ask you a serious question. I'm not doing it to be confrontational. I want to ask everyone this same question.
Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan (justfied w.r.t 9/11) or in Iraq (unjustified imho)?
Cause if you do then tell me why in the hell they're fucking bombing Iraqi citizens?
This is NOT about "innocent lives lost" in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere. It's about retaining power and crushing the West. Pure and simple. Just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. or Randal Terry and his bunch of Christian extremist wankers want to retain power, so does the extreme fundamentalist Islamic movement. They see the west as a whole as immoral and evil so they attack it. They see any Muslim who doesn't agree with thier specific brand of Islam as the enemy (blowing up police stations in Iraq for instance) and justified in dying. It's the same fucking sick morality that people in the U.S. use to shoot abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics.
Why does everyone assume that Muslims want it to change? Sure I know there are Muslim women and moderate Muslims that would love to see reintegration with the rest of society (if reintegration is the right choice of words?) but I'm beginning to get the feeling that, just as the Extreme Christian Right is taking control in America, so it is happening in the Muslim world.
I wonder sometimes (and posit'd the same thing when 9/11 happened) if Islam would even tolerate anything less that total worldwide Islam?
I don't remember Bush attacking Iraq when planes did the work in 2001.
I think it's fucking stupid that we're in Iraq but don't be a fucking idiot and blame this on Bush. If you must, if you're a Brit, blame it on Tony Blair.
Or how about this for fun....
BLAME IT ON THE FUCKING PEOPLE WHO PLANTED THE FUCKING BOMBS!
If you believe in the power of contract then you can understand that the company PROBABLY has a clause in the contract that says something along the lines of "conflict of interest".
Contracts are a powerful thing and require quite a bit of proof to get disolved. Shame on him for not reading his contract carefully enough.
This is, of course, only applicable if indeed the company has a conflict of interest clause.
I disagree and I'm the biggest proponent of free speech I know.
Look, i can't expect a company to continue my employement in widgets if I work for the anti-widget consortium and actively try to destroy the widget industry.
It's called conflict of interest. I don't want to hire someone at my widget plant if I even suspect he might try to sabotoge my widget manufacturing.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences and free speech isn't absolute. Your right to free speech, at least in the US, is limited as it relates to public safety. The old "fire in a crowded theater" bit and what not.
In this case, the employer felt that his views on copyright and intellectual property DIRECTLY conflicted with its business. I can't to the interview from the office right now (not screwing with production and all that) but I would be interested to hear what he said during the interview.
You are of course assuming that the copy of Windows the person is installing from is SP2 or SP1 in the case of 2003 Server.
I don't know how many home users are familiar with the slipstream process and most just have a single restore disk that came with the computer which is only a disk image and not an actually install disk for XP.
Well with the new 336 models you have an option. They provide a Y cable for connecting to a single circuit. We only use that at corporate where multiple circuits don't matter since we only have one feed anyway.
At our data centers, we use the multiple circuit from different feed option and skip the Y cable.
Of course the servers are all plugged into Cyclades PDUs anyway but each Cyclades PDU goes to a different circuit and feed so same diff.
As to failed power supplies, I can honestly say that the only two devices we've had at that datacenter that had failed power supplies are our FastT SAN and one of our HP 5300 Procurves. All of those had a redundant path anyway.
Actually they've just added a few new models. Previously, you could only get SATA models and customization was not available.
I just checked and it looks like now you can actually do some customization of the product line.
However one key part is missing and that's redundant power supply. There doesn't seem to be one. Also they don't have a model that has more than two drives (like the 336). We actually have a pretty large supply of 335-336 models we use as app servers (which is where we might use a 326) and then 345-346 models where we need the additional diskspace and don't want to use storage paritions on the SAN.
I'm glad the product line has come up a bit though. As we migrate off Websphere, we might be able to fit them in as Tomcat app servers. I just hate losing the redundant power though.
Because they want the server market. I won't buy a dell server to save my life because of past experiences BUT if Dell made opteron systems BEFORE IBM, I might consider buying a few for dev boxes. We consolidate on our development environment so I need as much horsepower as I can get out of a single box. With IBM already having release DB2 and Websphere for x86_64, I'm interested right now.
I've actually bitched at our IBM xSeries marketing rep about this already.
I don't expect them to drop in Opterons into the x446 models because that had so much in the way of custom enginering (used to be called Summit - not sure of the new name) but damnit I'm tired of ordering my x336 and x346 models with EMT64. I would much rather have Opterons.
Then again I'd love to have dual-core dual proc opterons in xSeries line soon too.
I actually tried that but it never worked reliably. And as far as reiser goes, I simply don't create any reiser partitions (or xfs for our postgres systems) until I'm ready to allocate the server. I found out once how well ghost did with resier when it decided to do a bit by bit copy of a 300GB empty volume.
That wasn't a government edict banning that display. It was a request by the government.
Fox chose not to show it.
Whether or not that was a wise decision is totally up to you.
Also, whether or not a "government request" with subsequent cries of tastelessness to the public can twist the minds of the sheep is also another thing to think about.
Everything you say is true but to claim that OSS solutions fall short is not true. While I would suggest a Juniper/Netscreen product anyday for ingress AND egress filtering, you can build a nice two box solution out of OSS.
Example? Sure. OpenBSD or Linux firewall OpenBSD or Linux Snort box with flexresp.
It's not the BEST solution but on a shoestring it might work. I'm guessing in the OP's case, his time is worth more than the cost of a single ns50 with DI/AV subscription.
REally you SHOULD be forcing all egress traffic out a proxy server for each LAN anyway. You can do some amazing stuff with Squid these days and inline AV scanning with ClamAV.
I also read a VERY interesting article in Linux Journal or SysAdmin (can't remember which right now) that used nessus and DHCPd to check machines for common security problems and assigned them captive network settings until the machine was fixed. It allowed outbound access to like Windows Update and the AV update sites and that was it.
You need someone to design the network to prevent this stuff as much as possible.
I've told my company flat out that any Windows server that provides a public or interdepartmental service has to be firewalled. Because they've had virus issues in the past which ended up being where I spent my first 2 months when I was brought on, this became rule number one.
Simply patching Windows servers is not enough anymore. While you sit there and have to test each MS patch on backup servers before moving into production, anything can happen. A good network design with some harware firewalling/packet filtering and a bit of Layer 2 sprinkled in here and there, will buy you the time you need to test the latest fix that Microsoft puts out.
You also need an admin who will configure the servers properly using the basic windows packet filter stuff as well. Disable unused services and other such common housecleaning tasks. Don't forget host-level security lest some silly jr. admin go in and fsck it all up.
Really this is an understandable ruling. As much as I'm still pissed at SCOTUS about Kelo v New London, this one actually makes some sense.
It's all about "substantial noninfringing use". Filesharing is still okay but a product whose "substantial noninfringing use" is sharing of illegal files is okay. If someone figures out a way to share files illegally over iTunes, iTunes is still legal. Same with Tivo.
I'm not so sure about Bittorrent though. I'll have to read the decision tonight when I have more time and I don't have a dead server.
I don't follow your line of reasoning here. See this:
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton David H. Souter - Bush (v.1) Anthony Kennedy - Reagan John Paul Stevens - Ford Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan Antonin Scalia - Reagan William H. Rehnquist - Nixon/Reagan Clarence Thomas - Bush (v.1)
I see no one there that this current administration has nominated!
And the decision was made by a local city government of whom all are Democrats.
I dislike this administration as much as possible but this is not a partisan issue. It's strictly one of general government power grabs. Both Republicans and Democrats are suceptible to this corruption.
What the ruling says is, that the definition of "equal rights" does not belong to the federal courts. Stevens wrote "local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community".
See the comparison. True the courts have, in the past Taking cases ruled that the court's job is only to determine if the Taking is legitimate "public use" (FYI you said "public good" which is an excellent example of how things get redefined. The 5th actually says "public USE") not the merits of the taking itself. Yet in the decision, Stephens based his decision partly on the merit and process of executing eminent domain! It's backwards and outright contradictory!
Slashdot Mirror
Show me where I said they WEREN'T Iraqi.
Al-Quaeda isn't a nationality. It's a religious affiliation. My point was that Iraqi's are targeted by Al Quaeda as much as Westerners are which blows the argument that they are trying to protect Iraqi's out of the water.
War is not inherently about racism.
People die in war. It doesn't care what race they are. It just usually happens that one race attacks another race along international boundries.
Was WW2 racism? Was Korea only about "Northern Gooks"?
Your argument doesn't hold.
Are there people that love to see those "sand niggers" (your words) killed? probably. Hell some of them are in my family but I'm not one of them.
Ask yourself why Al Quaeda is killing innocent Iraqis as well as Americans. It's not racial me thinks.
I'm going to ask you a serious question. I'm not doing it to be confrontational. I want to ask everyone this same question.
Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan (justfied w.r.t 9/11) or in Iraq (unjustified imho)?
Cause if you do then tell me why in the hell they're fucking bombing Iraqi citizens?
This is NOT about "innocent lives lost" in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere. It's about retaining power and crushing the West. Pure and simple. Just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. or Randal Terry and his bunch of Christian extremist wankers want to retain power, so does the extreme fundamentalist Islamic movement. They see the west as a whole as immoral and evil so they attack it. They see any Muslim who doesn't agree with thier specific brand of Islam as the enemy (blowing up police stations in Iraq for instance) and justified in dying. It's the same fucking sick morality that people in the U.S. use to shoot abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics.
Why does everyone assume that Muslims want it to change? Sure I know there are Muslim women and moderate Muslims that would love to see reintegration with the rest of society (if reintegration is the right choice of words?) but I'm beginning to get the feeling that, just as the Extreme Christian Right is taking control in America, so it is happening in the Muslim world.
I wonder sometimes (and posit'd the same thing when 9/11 happened) if Islam would even tolerate anything less that total worldwide Islam?
I don't remember Bush attacking Iraq when planes did the work in 2001.
I think it's fucking stupid that we're in Iraq but don't be a fucking idiot and blame this on Bush. If you must, if you're a Brit, blame it on Tony Blair.
Or how about this for fun....
BLAME IT ON THE FUCKING PEOPLE WHO PLANTED THE FUCKING BOMBS!
Interesting site but I seem to detect a slight bend to it.
I personally prefer non-partisan sites such as factcheck.org. The site you mention strikes me as a partisan anti-corporate rally point.
If you believe in the power of contract then you can understand that the company PROBABLY has a clause in the contract that says something along the lines of "conflict of interest".
Contracts are a powerful thing and require quite a bit of proof to get disolved. Shame on him for not reading his contract carefully enough.
This is, of course, only applicable if indeed the company has a conflict of interest clause.
I disagree and I'm the biggest proponent of free speech I know.
Look, i can't expect a company to continue my employement in widgets if I work for the anti-widget consortium and actively try to destroy the widget industry.
It's called conflict of interest. I don't want to hire someone at my widget plant if I even suspect he might try to sabotoge my widget manufacturing.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences and free speech isn't absolute. Your right to free speech, at least in the US, is limited as it relates to public safety. The old "fire in a crowded theater" bit and what not.
In this case, the employer felt that his views on copyright and intellectual property DIRECTLY conflicted with its business. I can't to the interview from the office right now (not screwing with production and all that) but I would be interested to hear what he said during the interview.
My understanding was that the tail was caused by solar winds.
You are of course assuming that the copy of Windows the person is installing from is SP2 or SP1 in the case of 2003 Server.
I don't know how many home users are familiar with the slipstream process and most just have a single restore disk that came with the computer which is only a disk image and not an actually install disk for XP.
In all fairness, if you have budget problems, television should be the last thing on your mind.
Well with the new 336 models you have an option. They provide a Y cable for connecting to a single circuit. We only use that at corporate where multiple circuits don't matter since we only have one feed anyway.
At our data centers, we use the multiple circuit from different feed option and skip the Y cable.
Of course the servers are all plugged into Cyclades PDUs anyway but each Cyclades PDU goes to a different circuit and feed so same diff.
As to failed power supplies, I can honestly say that the only two devices we've had at that datacenter that had failed power supplies are our FastT SAN and one of our HP 5300 Procurves. All of those had a redundant path anyway.
We don't like to dick around with the datacenter.
Hence my previous comment.
It works the same way with any federal funding. It's annoying and it almost totally binds the states to the will of the feds and it pisses me off.
Actually they've just added a few new models. Previously, you could only get SATA models and customization was not available.
I just checked and it looks like now you can actually do some customization of the product line.
However one key part is missing and that's redundant power supply. There doesn't seem to be one. Also they don't have a model that has more than two drives (like the 336). We actually have a pretty large supply of 335-336 models we use as app servers (which is where we might use a 326) and then 345-346 models where we need the additional diskspace and don't want to use storage paritions on the SAN.
I'm glad the product line has come up a bit though. As we migrate off Websphere, we might be able to fit them in as Tomcat app servers. I just hate losing the redundant power though.
Because they want the server market. I won't buy a dell server to save my life because of past experiences BUT if Dell made opteron systems BEFORE IBM, I might consider buying a few for dev boxes. We consolidate on our development environment so I need as much horsepower as I can get out of a single box. With IBM already having release DB2 and Websphere for x86_64, I'm interested right now.
I've actually bitched at our IBM xSeries marketing rep about this already.
I don't expect them to drop in Opterons into the x446 models because that had so much in the way of custom enginering (used to be called Summit - not sure of the new name) but damnit I'm tired of ordering my x336 and x346 models with EMT64. I would much rather have Opterons.
Then again I'd love to have dual-core dual proc opterons in xSeries line soon too.
I actually tried that but it never worked reliably. And as far as reiser goes, I simply don't create any reiser partitions (or xfs for our postgres systems) until I'm ready to allocate the server. I found out once how well ghost did with resier when it decided to do a bit by bit copy of a 300GB empty volume.
I think maybe CNN showed it but I'm not sure.
As to the footage of Rummy and Saddam, that's pretty common knowledge that the US supported Saddam against Iran in the early 80's.
And this is where my big problem comes in. This ALWAYS bites us in the buttocks. By that I mean the unofficial support of a country against an enemy.
While we're at it. Nation building is frickin' pointless too.
That wasn't a government edict banning that display. It was a request by the government.
Fox chose not to show it.
Whether or not that was a wise decision is totally up to you.
Also, whether or not a "government request" with subsequent cries of tastelessness to the public can twist the minds of the sheep is also another thing to think about.
CAll me when one of these livecds has a version of parted that supports ext3 properly.
I ended up having to boot off a gentoo livecd to resize a fucked up ghost image that size all my partitions incorrectly.
Okay *I* forgot to resize them upon reghosting but STILL.
Everything you say is true but to claim that OSS solutions fall short is not true. While I would suggest a Juniper/Netscreen product anyday for ingress AND egress filtering, you can build a nice two box solution out of OSS.
Example? Sure.
OpenBSD or Linux firewall
OpenBSD or Linux Snort box with flexresp.
It's not the BEST solution but on a shoestring it might work. I'm guessing in the OP's case, his time is worth more than the cost of a single ns50 with DI/AV subscription.
REally you SHOULD be forcing all egress traffic out a proxy server for each LAN anyway. You can do some amazing stuff with Squid these days and inline AV scanning with ClamAV.
I also read a VERY interesting article in Linux Journal or SysAdmin (can't remember which right now) that used nessus and DHCPd to check machines for common security problems and assigned them captive network settings until the machine was fixed. It allowed outbound access to like Windows Update and the AV update sites and that was it.
You need a new network.
You need someone to design the network to prevent this stuff as much as possible.
I've told my company flat out that any Windows server that provides a public or interdepartmental service has to be firewalled. Because they've had virus issues in the past which ended up being where I spent my first 2 months when I was brought on, this became rule number one.
Simply patching Windows servers is not enough anymore. While you sit there and have to test each MS patch on backup servers before moving into production, anything can happen. A good network design with some harware firewalling/packet filtering and a bit of Layer 2 sprinkled in here and there, will buy you the time you need to test the latest fix that Microsoft puts out.
You also need an admin who will configure the servers properly using the basic windows packet filter stuff as well. Disable unused services and other such common housecleaning tasks. Don't forget host-level security lest some silly jr. admin go in and fsck it all up.
Really this is an understandable ruling. As much as I'm still pissed at SCOTUS about Kelo v New London, this one actually makes some sense.
It's all about "substantial noninfringing use". Filesharing is still okay but a product whose "substantial noninfringing use" is sharing of illegal files is okay. If someone figures out a way to share files illegally over iTunes, iTunes is still legal. Same with Tivo.
I'm not so sure about Bittorrent though.
I'll have to read the decision tonight when I have more time and I don't have a dead server.
I don't follow your line of reasoning here. See this:
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton
David H. Souter - Bush (v.1)
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
John Paul Stevens - Ford
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon/Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Bush (v.1)
I see no one there that this current administration has nominated!
And the decision was made by a local city government of whom all are Democrats.
I dislike this administration as much as possible but this is not a partisan issue. It's strictly one of general government power grabs. Both Republicans and Democrats are suceptible to this corruption.
What the ruling says is, that the definition of "equal rights" does not belong to the federal courts. Stevens wrote "local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community".
See the comparison. True the courts have, in the past Taking cases ruled that the court's job is only to determine if the Taking is legitimate "public use" (FYI you said "public good" which is an excellent example of how things get redefined. The 5th actually says "public USE") not the merits of the taking itself. Yet in the decision, Stephens based his decision partly on the merit and process of executing eminent domain! It's backwards and outright contradictory!