I would have though that when somebody fucks up like that (and discovers the cock-up) that they would report/document such an incident when it was discovered, particularly when archiving records is particularly important in some organisations.
It is highly suspicious, if not damning, that the loss comes to light only when those particular records are needed. You're assuming those two events (the discovery of the problem, and the request for emails) are completely separate, which in fact the latter usually leads to the former. Unless you take pains to audit your own archiving, which doesn't happen nearly often enough, you simply have no way of knowing there's a problem until it's too late.
What happens when someone mixes up the archive tapes with regular backup tapes in a two a week reuse plan? That archive gets destroyed and years worth of documents are gone.
What happens when the archive server has a hardware failure and no one notices until it's too late? Or, similar vein, what happens when the people responsible for copying all incoming emails to the archive forget to turn off the MTA on the main mail server cluster while repairing the archive server, so those copies never get made in the first place?
What happens when the solution you're using to copy the emails as they come in has a database crash that's subtle enough to mangle the emails, but not enough to crash the MTA? So now all those copies go into an unreadable database, and no one notices until it's time to do an annual audit of the system.
These aren't just realistic scenarios, these are scenarios I myself have witnessed in corporate America. So while I don't know what happened the White House emails, I can state that accidents do happen.
Wouldn't a reasonable compromise be to ask the Wikipedia moderators, that since the images are offensive to Muslims, that they should be moved to a linked page, so that believers would not come across them by mistake? How about the images are just left off of the Arabic language pages? Anyone who's that devout a Muslim most likely reads Arabic well enough, if only because that's the "correct" language in which to read and study the Koran, at least according to what I know about devout/fanatical Muslims.
Or they could copy the text onto a different wiki site and just leave the images behind on Wikipedia, and do that for all images, just to make sure they don't get their feelings hurt. Wikipedia's copyright policies even allow for this, as long as they provide attribution.
Unless their goal is something else entirely separate from keeping themselves safe from viewing images forbidden by their religion, in which case they can fuck off.
Is that also your revolutionary manifesto? Don't be absurd. I'm may be talking about starting a civil war against the Federal government, but I'm not talking about randoms acts of terroristic violence. I'm a soldier, a veteran of the US military who served in both Gulf Wars, not a terrorist. I would never advocate inhumane acts in that endeavor, as I do not believe the ends justify the means. I consider myself to have more in common with Patrick Henry than Emmanuel Goldstein.
Here's an example of how/why you're wrong: Obama has a clearly defined, well laid out, comprehensive plan for the Federal government to provide health insurance to a majority of Americans. The problem? There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to do any such thing.
And yet you seem to think he'll accept other restrictions on the Federal government, when he's already very publicly said he'll ignore that one? Interesting.
Every time you say "It's OK for the Feds to ignore the Constitution on this thing, because it's good for us," you're saying it's OK for them to ignore the Constitution on a whole bunch of other issues that someone else thinks is "good for us".
Are you willing to kill other people to stop this kind of thing? Are you willing to give up your life, so that your children, or even the children of your friends, family, and neighbors, can live in a freer society than we? If you hesitated or said "No", or indeed anything other than a forceful "Yes", to either of those questions, you are a part of the problem and have only yourself to blame.
Not every colonist in 1776 supported the Revolution, but enough people did to change history. Can we find enough people with strength of heart, character, and purpose like that today?
I think it's time to stop talking and asking questions, and to start making some powerful people sleep a little less well at night.
He does mention freedom though as something he hates about it, but I'm pretty sure he's talking licence regarding holy practises, not freedom in the founding fathers sense. Yes, because the founding fathers were completely oblivious to the concept of freedom of religion, and never once wrote anything on that topic.
There's no place in this world that I want to go to that I can't drive to within a week or so. Try driving from Europe to the USA or vice versa Seems like you're ignoring an important piece of his original statement. Maybe he doesn't want to go to Europe (or the US, depending on on his starting location)?
is also unconstitutional Not at border crossings, it's not. Border agents have pretty much always been free to open up your luggage and rummage through it, this just extends the analogy to laptops and such.
If you have sensitive data that needs protecting, store it on a server, not your laptop. Then access it over SSL. It's not rocket science, it's barely even computer science!
No kidding. Once we can safely say "It's better here than Ireland or Sweden", then it will be a compelling argument. The Soviet Union was better in many ways than Iran or Afghanistan, but no one thinks of the USSR as a bastion of freedom and democracy.
Suppose I have some Python code, with my blocks indicated by tab characters. I now do a search and replace, replacing every tab with a {. Then I write some trivial code that searches through and sticks in a } wherever there is one less tab beginning a line than the line above. Quite often when I create dictionaries, I tab over to line up the keys and values to be indented from the name of the dictionary (and the initial { that sets the definition). Dealing with all of those tabs would add a certain level of complexity to your theoretical program mentioned above, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one out there who uses this style, I've seen similar uses of tabs and whitespace in many programs.
Not saying it would make it impossible, just listing another instance where switching out tabs with braces will be a pain.
You're correct about some of the motivations of the Islamists (they have others, like a desire to bring back the caliphate, though those mainly influence their behaviors in their own countries). But the question you leave unanswered is, should we modify our foreign policies due to the views and actions of extremists? That's a question I'd like to see debated on the national stage, and one that most politicians don't even seem to be aware of.
Sorry, but so far 9/11 goes to the same class for *the world* as, say, the death of princess Diana: a big news story. Perhaps. We won't really know for at least another 20 years, though.
-9/11 (one of the most world-changing events in modern history)
Na, WWII To be fair, WWII was a series of events. Though several of them (Hitler invading Poland, Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) rival or beat 9/11 in terms of how they changed the world.
Dude, when I get my patent on the Roman alphabet approved, you guys are so baked. If you think you can patent an alphabet, something tells me you're the one who's already baked.
Ehrrm, you NEVER have to give them your code. As that would be incriminating yourself. Yes, because while the government can safely ignore the 4th amendment, they're sure to respect the 5th.
They also tend to be the people who most hate the current incumbent President. I wonder what they think their options are if said President were to declare martial law and the entire military backed his claim to be President-for-life?
A very small part of me almost hopes something like that would actually happen, as it would end all of those stupid 2nd amendment debates for good. After all, a conservative is a liberal who's lived through a coup.
First of all, there isn't such a thing as "too much" freedom of speech, or "too much" freedom of the press. Sweet! I'll keep that in mind when I go catch a matinée over the weekend and shout "Fire!" to get the assclown in front of me to move out of my line-of-sight.
If you -really- learned that lesson, it was easily worth the 30 bucks. More even. Wow, the teachings of the Church of Scientology are worth more than $30 ($60, really, given the exchange rate)? Good to know.
What happens when the studios themselves start releasing torrents containing commercials? Sure, people could edit the commercials out and repost those shorter versions, but I think most people, or at least enough to make the advertisers happy, would go straight to the source for their entertainment and put up with the commercials if only for the ease of convenience. Considering how many of the networks and studios are already doing something close to that (I watched the entire season of Jericho on CBS' site, along with most of the Heroes on NBC), it's only a matter of time, really.
And that, of course, is what the WGA strike is all about: the writers don't get residuals from videos released over the Net, even though that's the direction all of the studios and networks are heading towards.
Oracle could not buy MySQL directly because of anti-trust issues This list has 21 companies Oracle has bought out in the last 10 years or so. Granted, only two of them are actual database companies, but all of them competed directly in one of Oracle's business areas. If anti-trust didn't stop those acquisitions, why would it have stopped this one?
Slashdot Mirror
It is highly suspicious, if not damning, that the loss comes to light only when those particular records are needed. You're assuming those two events (the discovery of the problem, and the request for emails) are completely separate, which in fact the latter usually leads to the former. Unless you take pains to audit your own archiving, which doesn't happen nearly often enough, you simply have no way of knowing there's a problem until it's too late.
What happens when someone mixes up the archive tapes with regular backup tapes in a two a week reuse plan? That archive gets destroyed and years worth of documents are gone.
What happens when the archive server has a hardware failure and no one notices until it's too late? Or, similar vein, what happens when the people responsible for copying all incoming emails to the archive forget to turn off the MTA on the main mail server cluster while repairing the archive server, so those copies never get made in the first place?
What happens when the solution you're using to copy the emails as they come in has a database crash that's subtle enough to mangle the emails, but not enough to crash the MTA? So now all those copies go into an unreadable database, and no one notices until it's time to do an annual audit of the system.
These aren't just realistic scenarios, these are scenarios I myself have witnessed in corporate America. So while I don't know what happened the White House emails, I can state that accidents do happen.
Or they could copy the text onto a different wiki site and just leave the images behind on Wikipedia, and do that for all images, just to make sure they don't get their feelings hurt. Wikipedia's copyright policies even allow for this, as long as they provide attribution.
Unless their goal is something else entirely separate from keeping themselves safe from viewing images forbidden by their religion, in which case they can fuck off.
Here's an example of how/why you're wrong: Obama has a clearly defined, well laid out, comprehensive plan for the Federal government to provide health insurance to a majority of Americans. The problem? There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to do any such thing.
And yet you seem to think he'll accept other restrictions on the Federal government, when he's already very publicly said he'll ignore that one? Interesting.
Every time you say "It's OK for the Feds to ignore the Constitution on this thing, because it's good for us," you're saying it's OK for them to ignore the Constitution on a whole bunch of other issues that someone else thinks is "good for us".
So what you're saying is, you're from the government and you're here to help us? That used to be the punchline to a joke, once upon a gilded age.
Are you willing to kill other people to stop this kind of thing? Are you willing to give up your life, so that your children, or even the children of your friends, family, and neighbors, can live in a freer society than we? If you hesitated or said "No", or indeed anything other than a forceful "Yes", to either of those questions, you are a part of the problem and have only yourself to blame.
Not every colonist in 1776 supported the Revolution, but enough people did to change history. Can we find enough people with strength of heart, character, and purpose like that today?
I think it's time to stop talking and asking questions, and to start making some powerful people sleep a little less well at night.
Sheesh, another Paul supporter. Haven't you guys given up yet?
If you have sensitive data that needs protecting, store it on a server, not your laptop. Then access it over SSL. It's not rocket science, it's barely even computer science!
No kidding. Once we can safely say "It's better here than Ireland or Sweden", then it will be a compelling argument. The Soviet Union was better in many ways than Iran or Afghanistan, but no one thinks of the USSR as a bastion of freedom and democracy.
Not saying it would make it impossible, just listing another instance where switching out tabs with braces will be a pain.
You're correct about some of the motivations of the Islamists (they have others, like a desire to bring back the caliphate, though those mainly influence their behaviors in their own countries). But the question you leave unanswered is, should we modify our foreign policies due to the views and actions of extremists? That's a question I'd like to see debated on the national stage, and one that most politicians don't even seem to be aware of.
Na, WWII To be fair, WWII was a series of events. Though several of them (Hitler invading Poland, Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) rival or beat 9/11 in terms of how they changed the world.
They also tend to be the people who most hate the current incumbent President. I wonder what they think their options are if said President were to declare martial law and the entire military backed his claim to be President-for-life?
A very small part of me almost hopes something like that would actually happen, as it would end all of those stupid 2nd amendment debates for good. After all, a conservative is a liberal who's lived through a coup.
No doubt. I'll be truly shocked if such a thing doesn't exist within two years of this post.
What happens when the studios themselves start releasing torrents containing commercials? Sure, people could edit the commercials out and repost those shorter versions, but I think most people, or at least enough to make the advertisers happy, would go straight to the source for their entertainment and put up with the commercials if only for the ease of convenience. Considering how many of the networks and studios are already doing something close to that (I watched the entire season of Jericho on CBS' site, along with most of the Heroes on NBC), it's only a matter of time, really.
And that, of course, is what the WGA strike is all about: the writers don't get residuals from videos released over the Net, even though that's the direction all of the studios and networks are heading towards.