relatedly, noone is developing or releasing X windows applications *targeted* at these other platforms - which is the same 'position' X will be in in this 'run x on wayland' world - further implying that over time less and less applications will run on X, further implying that over time network transparency will decrease more and more (since only the new firefox or libreoffice or whatever major software decides not to support X), so this is a bad *direction* to be headed in.
I have no problems rearchitecting the X server infrastructure to have a fast low layer, and a simplified api talking to this layer (that remains X, and therefore network-multiclient compatible), which is what most of the (non developer weenie) people complaining about so-called 'crufty x' are talking about -
but don't !@#$ ruin out of ignorance and shortsightedness the good things in X because of the bad - fix the bad, and make it compatible with what is.
ditto systemd, dbus and all of that stuff.
dbus? why not just f!@#$ing use the 127.0.0.1 loopback or require setting up a private multicast network????
nono, we need some crappy daemon writting using the hairball that is GLib-object-C being tied into *everything* on the system.
Because when the wayland display manager crashes, you don't lose any applications at the time? or explorer.exe? or QuartzCompositor or whatever its called on osx, etc?
what is the point of this post?
are you saying that the single-process managing X displays is less stable than the single process running these others?
umm.. because if you are, you are probably wrong. and if you're not, you're not making any sense.
You have to give these slashdotters more credit: They are really trying to do the best they can: Having no skills themselves, the only reasonable metric is time spent commenting on internal matters for a company they know nothing about! And Gweihir reputedly excels at this. If a slashdotter takes a break to consider something ratinoally, they are definitely not behaving normally in that moment, while a normal person doing the same thing is! So, from their perspective they are clearly making a profound, well informed statement on this matter.
Riiight.. because people who even know multiple customers willing to pay $10k for an exploit kit aren't seriously connected to other fraudsters and shady mafia types, and so on - e.g. 'oh hey - need to get some money sent? - I have a network of 50 people willing to accept transactions under 1k via their $account_type - I can get this to you for only a 25% transaction fee', 'I have this set of 100 accounts which are completely legal but otherwise dormant and unmonitored', 'oh, just buy 500 items from my bogus web dildo store', etc.
By that line of reasoning, since 'tanks' are essentially the direct descendents of horse mounted infantry from a weaponry and even army terminology (Armored Cavalry), and since there is no mention at all of horses, we can either conclude via similitude:
a) we should now ban horses because people cannot own tanks, and these are both cavalry b) the omission of horses from the constitution is proof that people *should* be allowed to own tanks
or other equally absurd lines of reasoning.
Tanks didn't exist at the time. The only major improvement in individual combat warfare for ~10000+ years from the bow and arrow is a single shot manually loaded gun, which is basically only slightly more effective (witness relative success of native americans vs colonists until the arrival of the repeating rifle & revolver)
I see no mention of cannons or catapults in the constitution, and both were 'non personal' 'artillery style' arms of the time which by this logic should be explicitly mentioned as not included.
Also - since you are referring to arms in the militia context, is not (full auto) suppresive fire a useful requirement of a modern militia by the same argument, if facing other combatants with that capability?
It is 'the *right* to bear arms' - not 'the legal basis to use a government issued license to bear arms'
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is not a subjective argument - it is a clear cut line of logical reasoning.
Apply the same to some other legal right which you do not take issue with - and you just said:
" The solution you propose is similar to what I have recommended to my friends. Just some way to call and check to see if the other person holds a valid license (to protest, vote, publish an article). It should be as simple as a call. "
" I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military. "
Based on what? how you want it to read?
Speaking of connecticut - how about community organized militias melting statues of king george for bullets?
This was very clearly a non-draft, citizen-organized, non-government 'militia' populated by self-armed citizens, who themselves were the very people using the term 'militia' when drafting the same document to which you refer.
On what basis can you claim that their conception of 'militia' drastically changed from the first context to the second? Would it not be a more natural assumption to assume these terms apply equally to both contexts?
As for the 'structure being setup ensuring' - part of the structure is the second amendment itself, for this very reason.
As for government using against citizens - based on their own historical context of a percieved downslide of the english monarchy into corruption and direct experience of government directly using weapons and force against its own unarmed subjects, why would they magically assume that this would not happen again?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
or maybe you think he meant:
"The price of freedom is being vigilant one time and transmuting that into some other representation but referring to this one time event as magically transcending time and therefore eternally"
Then why doesn't the NRA support the repeal of bans against 'real' assault weapons (the 1986 ban against fully automatic aka class III weapons), laws promoting gun locks, etc?
> If the government wanted to trample your rights in such a fashion, it would just do it.
Assuming your government doesn't support the notion of 'rights' at all, at least in theory. In the US, you still need to at least have some sort of convoluted argument which fits into the notion of the existing legal framework.
Also - ammunition is just as much 'arms' as the 'arms' themselves - If the 'arms' I'm bearing don't contain any ammunition, I just have a wooden/plastic/metal stick shaped like a gun.
Not that I agree with the whole left-right false dichotomy, preferring a 2 axis left-right social orientation and authoritarian-egalitarian axis 'grid', but.. if you're going to use the false dichotomy, at least be accurate about it.
Because Assad is doing *so well* in syria with his air superiority over the rebels, just as the afghanistan conflict is so terribly solved in favor of the US backed interests, and Iraq was a 'piece of cake'.
And lets just conveniently not even mention vietnam, or any one of a huge number of successful armed rebellions in latin america, or africa, etc. in the last 50 years.
No, actually, this is NEITHER a DOS Attack, nor a vulnerability. It is a *bug*
But oh so much better to douschebag promote yourself by being the super terducken 31337 hax0r sekuritah expert by mislabeling it and having it get picked up by the tech press.
Which, without the over sensationalized BS that is this story, will probably be in about a week tops.
And since BTRFS is not in any 'enterprise' Linux Distributions, means that it will pretty much be available immediately since everyone running it in critical production environments will probably be running pretty bleeding edge linuxen
Or is this some sort of veiled euphamism for the US Civil War, whereby a completely moronic rebellion which wouldn't have occurred if people didn't want to enslave others despite their alleged subscription to a constitution which gave 'inaliable rights to all', thankfully, was defeated by people who have 1/2 a brain, and the losers prattled on about their 'states rights' and other random garbage (all the while passing jim crow laws and creating nonsense like 'segragation'), and started referring to this war as 'the war between the states' in an apparent desire to make it seem like a minor disagreement between two completely valid viewpoints and also to make it sound like some stupid mint julip discussion on the veranda at the derby?
Make a coherent case that the civil war would have happened without slavery, and I'll agree with the 'confederate' opinions that it is about federalism vs centralism. Until then, call it 'The US Civil War' .
Obamas middle name is 'hussain' and not 'Honkey Mc Wasp Cracker'
The obama presedency is:
A half baked conspiricy theory that doesn't make any sense, whereby his dead islamic but free-market liberal (aka 'liberal' not 'librul') step father secretly controls his president stepson Barrack to implement Chinese-style free-market authoritarian 'communism' despite the fact that the Chinese government is hostile at worst and ambivalent at best to any form of organized religion.
This theory is justified, because some doof on fox news has made some sort of bolony equation that the islamic 'caliphate' expressed in the koran in the mid 600's is really a form of subverted marxist communism which was invented in the mid 1800s to early 1900s, and also because donald trump manages to say through 10 layers of facelift, botox, and hair bleach, that in fact *barak obamas* legitimate birth certificate is a fake, instead of his entire visage.
So obviously:
Electing a wishy washy, opinion changing ex-outsourcer-to-china who believes in *mormonism* for crying out loud, would have enabled a sea change of US opinion and therefore the end of the chineese empire, enabled the so-called 'liberation' of the 'secular' state of Israel from the evil Islamic tear-wrists, thereby proving american exceptionalism, and the recreation of the third temple which would magically bring forth the tribulation and end times, and the fulfillment of Gods promise to the Jews that they would be the chosen people but somehow would automatically convert to Christianity upon this event and thankfully since I am a WASP would be raptured up to heaven with my pre-1985 class III weapons and I wouldn't have to ever look at someone who has dark skin or speaks spanish ever again because the unclean 'darkies' were not predestined by Zwingli and John Weslayan, the apostles of the true made up faith, to have a place in the hereafter halleluja!
> That said, when we start censoring the internet, who do we put in charge, what safe guards do we have, and what prevents this from setting a terrible precedent.
Didn't you mean to say:
"censorship stands against freedom of speech which is a fundemental right and therefore we shouldnt even consider it, even in a regulated approach?"
Slashdot Mirror
All excellent points -
relatedly, noone is developing or releasing X windows applications *targeted* at these other platforms -
which is the same 'position' X will be in in this 'run x on wayland' world - further implying that over time
less and less applications will run on X, further implying that over time network transparency will
decrease more and more (since only the new firefox or libreoffice or whatever major software decides not to support X),
so this is a bad *direction* to be headed in.
I have no problems rearchitecting the X server infrastructure to have a fast low layer, and a simplified api talking
to this layer (that remains X, and therefore network-multiclient compatible), which is what most of the (non developer weenie)
people complaining about so-called 'crufty x' are talking about -
but don't !@#$ ruin out of ignorance and shortsightedness the good things in X because of the bad - fix the bad, and
make it compatible with what is.
ditto systemd, dbus and all of that stuff.
dbus? why not just f!@#$ing use the 127.0.0.1 loopback or require setting up a private multicast network????
nono, we need some crappy daemon writting using the hairball that is GLib-object-C being tied into *everything*
on the system.
derp derp derp.
Because when the wayland display manager crashes, you don't lose any applications at the time? or explorer.exe? or QuartzCompositor or whatever its called on osx, etc?
what is the point of this post?
are you saying that the single-process managing X displays is less stable than the single process running these others?
umm.. because if you are, you are probably wrong.
and if you're not, you're not making any sense.
After years of twitching on the gurney, Mayer is finally taking some kind of extreme measures to fix Yahoo's head.
Whether it is the right measure or not remains to be seen
You have to give these slashdotters more credit: They are really trying to do the best they can: Having no skills themselves, the only reasonable metric is time spent commenting on internal matters for a company they know nothing about! And Gweihir reputedly excels at this. If a slashdotter takes a break to consider something ratinoally, they are definitely not behaving normally in that moment, while a normal person doing the same thing is! So, from their perspective they are clearly making a profound, well informed statement on this matter.
Riiight.. because people who even know multiple customers willing to pay $10k for an exploit kit aren't seriously connected to other fraudsters and shady mafia types, and so on - e.g. 'oh hey - need to get some money sent? - I have a network of 50 people willing to accept transactions under 1k via their $account_type - I can get this to you for only a 25% transaction fee', 'I have this set of 100 accounts which are completely legal but otherwise dormant and unmonitored', 'oh, just buy 500 items from my bogus web dildo store', etc.
At this point does any tech savvy user still think that Java isn't built into every modern web browser and that you need a plugin for it?
I love java - jQuery is great, especially with HTML5 :D
By that line of reasoning, since 'tanks' are essentially the direct descendents of horse mounted infantry
from a weaponry and even army terminology (Armored Cavalry), and since there is no mention at all
of horses, we can either conclude via similitude:
a) we should now ban horses because people cannot own tanks, and these are both cavalry
b) the omission of horses from the constitution is proof that people *should* be allowed to own tanks
or other equally absurd lines of reasoning.
Tanks didn't exist at the time. The only major improvement in individual combat warfare for ~10000+ years from the bow and arrow is a single shot manually loaded gun, which is basically only slightly more effective (witness relative success of native americans vs colonists until the arrival of the repeating rifle & revolver)
I see no mention of cannons or catapults in the constitution, and both were 'non personal' 'artillery style'
arms of the time which by this logic should be explicitly mentioned as not included.
Also - since you are referring to arms in the militia context, is not (full auto) suppresive fire a useful requirement of a modern militia by the same argument, if facing other combatants with that capability?
It is 'the *right* to bear arms' - not 'the legal basis to use a government issued license to bear arms'
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact
the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is not a subjective argument - it is a clear cut line of logical reasoning.
Apply the same to some other legal right which you do not take issue with - and you just said:
"
The solution you propose is similar to what I have recommended to my friends. Just some way to call and check to see if the other person holds a valid license (to protest, vote, publish an article). It should be as simple as a call.
"
"
I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military.
"
Based on what? how you want it to read?
Speaking of connecticut - how about community organized militias melting statues of king george for bullets?
http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/king_georges_head.htm
This was very clearly a non-draft, citizen-organized, non-government 'militia' populated by
self-armed citizens, who themselves were the very people using the term 'militia' when drafting
the same document to which you refer.
On what basis can you claim that their conception of 'militia' drastically changed from the first context to the second? Would it not be a more natural assumption to assume these terms apply equally to both contexts?
As for the 'structure being setup ensuring' - part of the structure is the second amendment itself, for
this very reason.
As for government using against citizens - based on their own historical context of a percieved downslide
of the english monarchy into corruption and direct experience of government directly using weapons and
force against its own unarmed subjects, why would they magically assume that this would not happen
again?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
or maybe you think he meant:
"The price of freedom is being vigilant one time and transmuting that into some other representation
but referring to this one time event as magically transcending time and therefore eternally"
Really?
The NRA doesn't compromise on anything at all?
Then why doesn't the NRA support the repeal of bans against 'real' assault weapons
(the 1986 ban against fully automatic aka class III weapons), laws promoting gun locks, etc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America
http://jpfo.org/
etc.
Really don't know what point you are trying to make here:
"
Mark 15:29-30
King James Version (KJV)
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
"
not 'saving' himself from the death by crucifiction is *the entire point*
> If the government wanted to trample your rights in such a fashion, it would just do it.
Assuming your government doesn't support the notion of 'rights' at all, at least in theory.
In the US, you still need to at least have some sort of convoluted argument which fits
into the notion of the existing legal framework.
Also - ammunition is just as much 'arms' as the 'arms' themselves - If the 'arms' I'm
bearing don't contain any ammunition, I just have a wooden/plastic/metal stick shaped
like a gun.
Since when are facist dictatorships leftist?
Not that I agree with the whole left-right false dichotomy, preferring a 2 axis left-right social .. if you're going to use the false dichotomy,
orientation and authoritarian-egalitarian axis 'grid', but
at least be accurate about it.
Right -
Because Assad is doing *so well* in syria with his air superiority over the rebels,
just as the afghanistan conflict is so terribly solved in favor of the US backed interests,
and Iraq was a 'piece of cake'.
And lets just conveniently not even mention vietnam, or any one of a huge number of
successful armed rebellions in latin america, or africa, etc. in the last 50 years.
No, actually, this is NEITHER a DOS Attack, nor a vulnerability. It is a *bug*
But oh so much better to douschebag promote yourself by being the super terducken 31337 hax0r sekuritah expert
by mislabeling it and having it get picked up by the tech press.
Yah dude, you're so totally spot on - noone at all documents this!
I think he was talking about how he is a clueless moron.
LVM has snapshots and DM has encryption.
And since when is deduplication a 'critical' enterprise feature?
e.g. who else has it other than ZFS in the unix world without having an expensive addon product etc?
(other than DragonFlyBSD's hammer, which unfortunately corporate weenies have testicles too small to deploy)
maybe critical for your application - but this doesn't mean its mega-lagging behind.
Which, without the over sensationalized BS that is this story, will probably be in about a week tops.
And since BTRFS is not in any 'enterprise' Linux Distributions, means that it will pretty much be available
immediately since everyone running it in critical production environments will probably be running
pretty bleeding edge linuxen
What do you mean by: 'the war between the states'
Aren't all wars between states?
Or is this some sort of veiled euphamism for the US Civil War, whereby a completely moronic rebellion which wouldn't have occurred if people didn't want to enslave others despite their alleged subscription to a constitution which gave 'inaliable rights to all', thankfully, was defeated by people who have 1/2 a brain, and the losers prattled on about their 'states rights' and other random garbage (all the while passing jim crow laws and creating nonsense like 'segragation'), and started referring to this war as 'the war between the states' in an apparent desire to make it seem like a minor disagreement between two completely valid viewpoints and also to make it sound like some stupid mint julip discussion on the veranda at the derby?
Make a coherent case that the civil war would have happened without slavery, and I'll agree with the 'confederate' opinions that it is about federalism vs centralism. Until then, call it 'The US Civil War' .
Nono - of course not!
Clearly because :
Obamas middle name is 'hussain' and not 'Honkey Mc Wasp Cracker'
The obama presedency is:
A half baked conspiricy theory that doesn't make any sense, whereby his dead islamic but free-market liberal (aka 'liberal' not 'librul') step father secretly controls his president stepson Barrack to implement Chinese-style free-market authoritarian 'communism' despite the fact that the Chinese government is hostile at worst and ambivalent at best to any form of organized religion.
This theory is justified, because some doof on fox news has made some sort of bolony equation that the islamic 'caliphate' expressed in the koran in the mid 600's is really a form of subverted marxist communism which was invented in the mid 1800s to early 1900s,
and also because donald trump manages to say through 10 layers of facelift, botox, and hair bleach, that in fact *barak obamas* legitimate birth certificate is a fake, instead of his entire visage.
So obviously:
Electing a wishy washy, opinion changing ex-outsourcer-to-china who believes in *mormonism* for crying out loud, would have enabled a sea change of US opinion and therefore the end of the chineese empire, enabled the so-called 'liberation' of
the 'secular' state of Israel from the evil Islamic tear-wrists, thereby proving american exceptionalism, and the recreation
of the third temple which would magically bring forth the tribulation and end times, and the fulfillment of Gods promise to the Jews
that they would be the chosen people but somehow would automatically convert to Christianity upon this event and thankfully since I am a WASP would be raptured up to heaven with my pre-1985 class III weapons and I wouldn't have to ever look at someone who has dark skin or speaks spanish ever again because the unclean 'darkies' were not predestined by Zwingli and John Weslayan, the apostles of the true made up faith, to have a place in the hereafter halleluja!
Testify my Brothers! It is the Truth!
Saying this is 'broken' (by saying it is 'fixed' now) because it doesn't let you mix windows is a total crap article title.
Slashdot is getting as bad as information week with the sensationalist crap titles
Hey there nazi boy - why don't you post as non-ac?
Don't want your blonde boyfriend to know you were slashdotting instead of cleaning his vibrator?
> That said, when we start censoring the internet, who do we put in charge, what safe guards do we have, and what prevents this from setting a terrible precedent.
Didn't you mean to say:
"censorship stands against freedom of speech which is a fundemental right and therefore we shouldnt even consider it, even in a regulated approach?"
> Think bigger, change that to every political extremist including Israels and I' m with that.
Why don't you save us all a bullet then and commit suicide?