You seem insecure. It may surprise you that I don't really care whether you served or not, nor do I consider the fact that I did to be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things. If we're honest, neither of us really matter all that much in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, you seem to be demonstrating an oft-seen reaction to exposure to people who affirm prior service in the context of conversations like these, and I'd guess it's probably based on insecurity stemming from something else in your life. That's too bad, but it is your problem, not mine.
Getting back to the topic of the story, the statement that there was a fuck-up is redundant. That failures occurred is obvious, but the specific nature of those failures and their dependencies are something that neither of us are direct parties to. One of us simply has more subject matter experience here, and is better qualified to point out ignorant and puffed-up speculation on the part of others. Really, the core problem remains that you simply have no basis of experience to speak from. In other words, you don't know what you don't know. That's perfectly okay as long as you can admit it and work forward from there. You don't seem prepared to do that, though.
It doesn't really matter here, but I can't help but note in closing my suspicion that you also wouldn't be prepared to use your closing line in person. Thus, it seems one of us is indeed interested in attempting to prove his manhood, but it isn't me. Have a great day!
You're absolutely wrong. Please look up some actual caselaw before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance. I'd invest 15 minutes of my life doing this for you, since you're apparently incapable of doing it for yourself or you presumably would have already done so, but at this point it seems I'm wasting more of my life than is justified by even replying to your post. HAND.
The statement itself isn't what's legally binding. Unless explicilty stated otherwise via assignment to the public domain, copyright protection for produced works (such as photographs) is automatic in the United States. As for the rest, you're simply being pedantic, and you got upset when you were called on it.
A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.
This is one of the things I love most about the Internet. Once the bytes are transmitted and hit storage mediums frequented by a substantial number of souls, the bytes become quasi-immortal. I'll try to remember to perform a search for your post using whatever über (or uber for this venue, c'mon/. it's 2012, let's get with the Unicode program) engine is all the rage ten years from now. In the meantime, thank you for the reminder, and have a great day.
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. In general, I agree with your line of thought. My original post was really more intended to illustrate the fact that the GP almost certainly had no operational experience, proper education, or firsthand knowledge of the events to base his statement on. Someone will indeed be found at fault, and it may turn out (as so many things do) to be a cumulative effect of errors on both vessels. Thanks again for the reply.
Thank you for your service. I'd like to remind you that you aren't privy to comms, misleading comms, or lack of expected comms during this exercise, and would encourage you to consider alternate scenarios. In other words, sometimes it takes two to tango.
You are privy to neither the objectives of nor the operational timeline of the exercise. In other words, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Let me be perfectly clear: your first mistake was attempting to speak with authority on a topic you have absolutely no fucking knowledge of, and your second mistake was attempting to refute the public assertion of your ignorance with a hollow demand for "insight" that clearly cannot be provided in accordance with universally understood principles of certain oaths involving clearances. Put even more simply, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about, and things are so much more interesting than you might imagine. Perhaps you should have had the fucking nuts required to wear a uniform. Sadly, you didn't. So instead, try to have a nice day, and perhaps think about giving a bit more thought to thinking before you speak.
Please share your deep insights into the particulars of this event, and don't forget to include your qualifications for speaking on the topic. I've served on a submarine. Have you?
It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?
Many moons ago, I spent four years as a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds, but have long since recovered. These days, I prefer the approach of killing my own game, so I can be directly assured the animal wasn't treated inhumanely prior to its death, that its death was swift, and that its body will be used to the fullest potential possible.
In case you weren't actually interested in a direct response to your post, please familiarize yourself with the word pedantic. Have a nice day.
As others have pointed out, your reply demonstrates your ignorance. iOS is indeed a Unix operating system:
iOS is derived from OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix operating system. iOS is Apple's mobile version of the OS X operating system used on Apple computers.
Speaking as someone who's been using Linux and championing it in server and limited, special purpose desktop environments since the 90s, I wholeheartedly agree with your general premise. That said, I think there's an important lesson here that you probably see yourself, but didn't express.
Apple went from Mac OS 9 in 1999 (the final progression in the "classic" series beginning with 1.0 in 1984, closely followed by Windows 1.0 in 1985 [albeit only a highly limited MS-DOS graphical shell]) to Mac OS X in 1999/2000 following the purchase of NeXT in the 90s. This essentially meant Mac OS became a *nix operating system with a pretty GUI; the emphasis on its lineage is further reinforced by the release of Mac OS X Sever prior to a general desktop OS release. Especially considering the company's prior struggles and obvious challenges maintaining its existence as an integrated systems vendor (operating system plus their hardware), they really bet the farm on this.
As it turns out, Mac OS X became what many people expected from the "Linux on the desktop" dream, at least in terms of basic *nix underpinnings and reasonable extensibility. This occurred because Apple drove the campaign bus, so to speak, as a single corporate entity bent on carving out its share of the market pie. They delivered what the market judged to be a good product, largely based on usability principles (that we may or may not personally agree with) and reputation for It Just Works reliability.
Consequently, Apple is now the most valuable company in the world. While I continue to operate all my server infrastructure on Debian, I'm typing this from a three year old MacBook Pro. In my view, consistency, stability, support, and marketing to tell the world about all of it have won the day for Apple. I have yet to see a single Linux vendor competently fulfill those requirements when it comes to mass market desktop sales. Perhaps I never will. In the end, that's actually okay with me, since I will simply continue to use the tool that works best and is best accepted in business environments for different roles. For several years running, that's mostly meant Debian on servers and Mac OS X on desktops, and things Just Work.
Alternately, people could simply take responsibility for themselves and choose to avoid services which require agreement to miles of terms. Given your attitude on the topic, you probably haven't even bothered to read the terms of service for anything you're using right now. It seems you're trying to divert responsibility for yourself onto the backs of the service organizations you choose to deal with. Again, note the word "choose."
You've also managed to miss the opportunity to discuss where data goes and how it's protected after it's submitted in the first place. Oddly enough, this is the essential question posed by the submitter in the first place, and regardless of what any given set of terms says, is actually the most important piece that very few people think about at all. In other words, you can trust an organization to high heaven based on what they say they will or won't do with your data, but if their infrastructure is a gaping mess of channels by which your information could get compromised, all of a sudden those terms don't mean much. I applaud the submitter for asking the right questions, and remind you to think more about your responses in terms of real wold data acquisition and retention mechanisms before posting again.
I'm not sure why the parent post is marked flamebait. It's both ontopic and insightful. For anyone who doesn't understand why, you might be surprised how certain things actually work. If anything, for those with a morbid sense of humor, it should be marked funny.
If you had 3.1 GBytes of RAM in any single system you personally owned in 2002, please tell us what you've been doing since then. Inquiring minds truly want to know what revelations await.
I'm terribly sorry to have to inform you of this, but that money just won't kill a million people nearly as rapidly as a bomb. I'm not excusing accumulated deaths over time, mind you, just noting that the instantaneous effect of massive population reduction in a matter of minutes has a somewhat more "oh shit" factor associated with it. This falls into the category of "slow drip versus epic flood" in terms of catastrophic consequences.
No, you shouldn't trust a package now because the distro you're using is run by core developers who still don't have a shred of honest concern for security. Go ahead and talk to the them about the topic; it'll at least result in a few laughs. Let's put it another way: if someone shot you in the face last year, but has promised he's changed his ways, are you going to invite him over for dinner tonight?
Slashdot Mirror
I use KVM on Debian hosts for all my production stuff, but yeah, my first thought was "those servers are all virtualized now."
You seem insecure. It may surprise you that I don't really care whether you served or not, nor do I consider the fact that I did to be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things. If we're honest, neither of us really matter all that much in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, you seem to be demonstrating an oft-seen reaction to exposure to people who affirm prior service in the context of conversations like these, and I'd guess it's probably based on insecurity stemming from something else in your life. That's too bad, but it is your problem, not mine.
Getting back to the topic of the story, the statement that there was a fuck-up is redundant. That failures occurred is obvious, but the specific nature of those failures and their dependencies are something that neither of us are direct parties to. One of us simply has more subject matter experience here, and is better qualified to point out ignorant and puffed-up speculation on the part of others. Really, the core problem remains that you simply have no basis of experience to speak from. In other words, you don't know what you don't know. That's perfectly okay as long as you can admit it and work forward from there. You don't seem prepared to do that, though.
It doesn't really matter here, but I can't help but note in closing my suspicion that you also wouldn't be prepared to use your closing line in person. Thus, it seems one of us is indeed interested in attempting to prove his manhood, but it isn't me. Have a great day!
You're absolutely wrong. Please look up some actual caselaw before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance. I'd invest 15 minutes of my life doing this for you, since you're apparently incapable of doing it for yourself or you presumably would have already done so, but at this point it seems I'm wasting more of my life than is justified by even replying to your post. HAND.
The statement itself isn't what's legally binding. Unless explicilty stated otherwise via assignment to the public domain, copyright protection for produced works (such as photographs) is automatic in the United States. As for the rest, you're simply being pedantic, and you got upset when you were called on it.
A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.
This is one of the things I love most about the Internet. Once the bytes are transmitted and hit storage mediums frequented by a substantial number of souls, the bytes become quasi-immortal. I'll try to remember to perform a search for your post using whatever über (or uber for this venue, c'mon /. it's 2012, let's get with the Unicode program) engine is all the rage ten years from now. In the meantime, thank you for the reminder, and have a great day.
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. In general, I agree with your line of thought. My original post was really more intended to illustrate the fact that the GP almost certainly had no operational experience, proper education, or firsthand knowledge of the events to base his statement on. Someone will indeed be found at fault, and it may turn out (as so many things do) to be a cumulative effect of errors on both vessels. Thanks again for the reply.
Actually been here since 2004. Second account, dumbfuck.
Thank you for your service. I'd like to remind you that you aren't privy to comms, misleading comms, or lack of expected comms during this exercise, and would encourage you to consider alternate scenarios. In other words, sometimes it takes two to tango.
You are privy to neither the objectives of nor the operational timeline of the exercise. In other words, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Let me be perfectly clear: your first mistake was attempting to speak with authority on a topic you have absolutely no fucking knowledge of, and your second mistake was attempting to refute the public assertion of your ignorance with a hollow demand for "insight" that clearly cannot be provided in accordance with universally understood principles of certain oaths involving clearances. Put even more simply, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about, and things are so much more interesting than you might imagine. Perhaps you should have had the fucking nuts required to wear a uniform. Sadly, you didn't. So instead, try to have a nice day, and perhaps think about giving a bit more thought to thinking before you speak.
Please share your deep insights into the particulars of this event, and don't forget to include your qualifications for speaking on the topic. I've served on a submarine. Have you?
It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?
Many moons ago, I spent four years as a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds, but have long since recovered. These days, I prefer the approach of killing my own game, so I can be directly assured the animal wasn't treated inhumanely prior to its death, that its death was swift, and that its body will be used to the fullest potential possible.
In case you weren't actually interested in a direct response to your post, please familiarize yourself with the word pedantic. Have a nice day.
Why do I get the impression you're almost experiencing this?
As others have pointed out, your reply demonstrates your ignorance. iOS is indeed a Unix operating system:
iOS is derived from OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix operating system. iOS is Apple's mobile version of the OS X operating system used on Apple computers.
Speaking as someone who's been using Linux and championing it in server and limited, special purpose desktop environments since the 90s, I wholeheartedly agree with your general premise. That said, I think there's an important lesson here that you probably see yourself, but didn't express.
Apple went from Mac OS 9 in 1999 (the final progression in the "classic" series beginning with 1.0 in 1984, closely followed by Windows 1.0 in 1985 [albeit only a highly limited MS-DOS graphical shell]) to Mac OS X in 1999/2000 following the purchase of NeXT in the 90s. This essentially meant Mac OS became a *nix operating system with a pretty GUI; the emphasis on its lineage is further reinforced by the release of Mac OS X Sever prior to a general desktop OS release. Especially considering the company's prior struggles and obvious challenges maintaining its existence as an integrated systems vendor (operating system plus their hardware), they really bet the farm on this.
As it turns out, Mac OS X became what many people expected from the "Linux on the desktop" dream, at least in terms of basic *nix underpinnings and reasonable extensibility. This occurred because Apple drove the campaign bus, so to speak, as a single corporate entity bent on carving out its share of the market pie. They delivered what the market judged to be a good product, largely based on usability principles (that we may or may not personally agree with) and reputation for It Just Works reliability.
Consequently, Apple is now the most valuable company in the world. While I continue to operate all my server infrastructure on Debian, I'm typing this from a three year old MacBook Pro. In my view, consistency, stability, support, and marketing to tell the world about all of it have won the day for Apple. I have yet to see a single Linux vendor competently fulfill those requirements when it comes to mass market desktop sales. Perhaps I never will. In the end, that's actually okay with me, since I will simply continue to use the tool that works best and is best accepted in business environments for different roles. For several years running, that's mostly meant Debian on servers and Mac OS X on desktops, and things Just Work.
obligatory reference yet. For extra bonus points, let's theorize about what the prize claimant will have to do as part of the claims process.
I firmly believe this is obligatory.
Alternately, people could simply take responsibility for themselves and choose to avoid services which require agreement to miles of terms. Given your attitude on the topic, you probably haven't even bothered to read the terms of service for anything you're using right now. It seems you're trying to divert responsibility for yourself onto the backs of the service organizations you choose to deal with. Again, note the word "choose."
You've also managed to miss the opportunity to discuss where data goes and how it's protected after it's submitted in the first place. Oddly enough, this is the essential question posed by the submitter in the first place, and regardless of what any given set of terms says, is actually the most important piece that very few people think about at all. In other words, you can trust an organization to high heaven based on what they say they will or won't do with your data, but if their infrastructure is a gaping mess of channels by which your information could get compromised, all of a sudden those terms don't mean much. I applaud the submitter for asking the right questions, and remind you to think more about your responses in terms of real wold data acquisition and retention mechanisms before posting again.
I'm not sure why the parent post is marked flamebait. It's both ontopic and insightful. For anyone who doesn't understand why, you might be surprised how certain things actually work. If anything, for those with a morbid sense of humor, it should be marked funny.
That's not how PCI works at all. Please educate yourself.
If you had 3.1 GBytes of RAM in any single system you personally owned in 2002, please tell us what you've been doing since then. Inquiring minds truly want to know what revelations await.
I'm terribly sorry to have to inform you of this, but that money just won't kill a million people nearly as rapidly as a bomb. I'm not excusing accumulated deaths over time, mind you, just noting that the instantaneous effect of massive population reduction in a matter of minutes has a somewhat more "oh shit" factor associated with it. This falls into the category of "slow drip versus epic flood" in terms of catastrophic consequences.
I think you've missed about ten years of history.
No, you shouldn't trust a package now because the distro you're using is run by core developers who still don't have a shred of honest concern for security. Go ahead and talk to the them about the topic; it'll at least result in a few laughs. Let's put it another way: if someone shot you in the face last year, but has promised he's changed his ways, are you going to invite him over for dinner tonight?