The different spin each side give the same story is interesting and you can bet the truth is maybe there somewhere in the middle.
What a remarkably foolish thing to believe. Listening to two different liars does not get you closer to the truth. The odds that the truth is somewhere on a line between their lies are extremely remote. Both points and all points in-between are probably far away from anything resembling truth. If someone tells you a man is a plucked chicken, and other says a man is a garden slug, constructing a chimera from them to try to create a real man doesn't get you something any more man-like.
To be fair, those of us still calling him a hero aren't in fear of our lives. We simply have zero change of being published or heard in any major media. We don't have death squads in the US because we don't need them. Our methods of censorship are so effective, we have nothing to fear from the dissidents. We happy to let them live and be ignored.
You are deluded if you think Russia vs United States, Russia is the 'good guys'. In fact, I don't consider the US to be 'good guys'...
There are no "good guys". Well, actually, there are "good guys", but none of them get elected, or manage to climb to power in places where they use other means of gaining power.
Expect more of this. When the nature of an industry means it doesn't really depend on local geography, resources, or much in the way of population, so you can really locate it anywhere you can get power and a data trunk... suddenly some otherwise undistinguished location in the middle of nowhere becomes a perfect location.
We have to use up all the fossil fuels before the alternatives become sufficiently economically viable. In the end, they will all be used up, right? So sooner is better than later.
That would be true if they didn't have other important non-fuel uses, and if using them has no environmental impact. Alas, neither of these things are true.
Whatever fossil fuels we don't use, China and India will use.
Not if better alternatives become more widespread. I don't know about India, but the Chinese are starting to scream about environmental issues loud enough that even a totalitarian government can't ignore it.
I always wonder why M$ refers to their business centers as a "Campus"...
campus [noun] ...
5. a large, usually suburban, landscaped business or industrial site.
I'm going to venture a guess that when they refer to one of their business centers as a "campus", it's because it is large, possibly suburban, and landscaped.
It's a symbiotic relationship. If it works out as expected everybody in Iowa benefits.
That's always the propaganda. Sometimes it's even true. The occasional jackpot gives the politicians cover for continuing to engage in crony capitalism without outraging the public too much. I wouldn't even mind that if the payoff occurred more consistently (cf. my previous message about no longer caring if people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, as long as they do the right thing). As it stands, though, crony capitalism seems to cost more than it nets...
of course, their "gayest" city, Iowa City, has a single gay bar not much bigger than a minivan. conclusion: Iowa's gay marriage law was a tourist attraction trial balloon.
I've given up on hoping people will do the right thing for the right reasons. I'm now content when people do the right thing, regardless.
I used to imagine that whining so well that when we closed down the computer lab in school, I'd known when someone left a monitor on when they turned their computer off, and walk right to the monitor that was still on and turn it off, too, just by following the imagined sound. Since being able to hear 15khz is apparently an imagined ability, I was apparently using my psychic powers instead to find the monitor that was still on. Now doubt this is a much more believable explanation.
Indeed. Phosphor persistence wasn't that persistent. I could see the flicker on CRT displays. I don't notice any flicker on modern backlit displays, though...
Spoken like a true brainwashed robot, parroting your propaganda. Meanwhile, real people capable of thinking for themselves understand the concept of using different tools in different situations, and know that sometimes it's better to be centralized, and sometimes better to be decentralized. Both bits of software are made for people trying to solve similar problems, but with different nuances.
... As long as you can get them to commit the changes, you're ensured that those changes are now on a server/machine that is getting backed up and taken care of.
I solved this problem at my last job by setting up a testing environment that pulled changes from the repository. It helped that the system being worked on was large and complex enough that it would be a pain in the ass to try to set up a local copy on your own machine for testing, so everyone would just use the test server, which, in order to use, required a commit to the development repository so the test server could pull the commit and put it into testing (in fact, this was accomplished in the post-commit script). The SVN server would receive commits from every developer continually through the day, and even the tiny change always had at least one "backup" somewhere.
The only downside to this is commit log pollution, but it wasn't really a problem -- these tiny commits would just have an empty log comment that could be easily ignored, and when things were finally working well, the changes would then be merged into the main branch with a properly documented commit.
You can do whatever you want with your own software. Only other people require a license, and are bound by the terms of it. License terms do not apply to the copyright owner -- that doesn't even make any sense.
Sure they do! A few years ago, Microsoft was found guilty of violating the laws, and received a harsh sentence. They had to give people coupons or something...
Exactly. Trolls and fanboys are a signal-to-noise issue, nothing more.
...and when there's too much noise, it drowns out the signal. Trolls allowed to run amok are an effective form of censorship, preventing anyone else from having their voice heard. The "grow a skin or log off" group think censorship is fine, as long as it's not done by moderators.
For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world.
Ha, I wish... all I get to vote for is politicians. We don't actually get to vote for the people the politicians take their orders from, nor are the people who set and implement national military or economic policy in any way democratically selected or answerable to anyone but (in theory) their shareholders (and even that's not really the case).
What's that got to do with anything? We're insisting that these people are not POWs (otherwise, they'd be entitled to a bunch of protections under the Geneva convention).
That seems a bit of a stretch. The more straightforward insidious reason to report the second half of last year's data is because it looks a lot better than the first half of the year's data. People will see 9-10 thousand in half a year and assume, okay, that means about 18-20 thousand in a year, when in fact the whole year's stats were much worse...
Even if they are using SSL between the front end and the middle tier, self signed certs are probably used between those layers and its "game over" anyway in that case.
You think whether the cert is self-signed or not is relevant in this case, you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Having Verisign sign the cert wouldn't do jack-diddly-squat here.
Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.
Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.
The really obvious flaw in your logic is that it requires more than the claim to be true. If I claim the US is secretly recording the content of conversations between Americans (based on my personal speculation), that doesn't make me a traitor, even if it's true. On the other hand, I'm arguably a traitor if the government gives me access to that information and I then betray my NDA/oath/security clearance and reveal it. He really did need to have the access he claims, or it's not really treason, because he's not revealing anything, he's just speculating and saying frankly what speculators on Slashdot have been saying for years. They don't all become traitors if their speculation turns out to be correct.
Slashdot Mirror
The different spin each side give the same story is interesting and you can bet the truth is maybe there somewhere in the middle.
What a remarkably foolish thing to believe. Listening to two different liars does not get you closer to the truth. The odds that the truth is somewhere on a line between their lies are extremely remote. Both points and all points in-between are probably far away from anything resembling truth. If someone tells you a man is a plucked chicken, and other says a man is a garden slug, constructing a chimera from them to try to create a real man doesn't get you something any more man-like.
s/change/chance/
(Silly mistake -- "change" we don't receive in.)
To be fair, those of us still calling him a hero aren't in fear of our lives. We simply have zero change of being published or heard in any major media. We don't have death squads in the US because we don't need them. Our methods of censorship are so effective, we have nothing to fear from the dissidents. We happy to let them live and be ignored.
You are deluded if you think Russia vs United States, Russia is the 'good guys'. In fact, I don't consider the US to be 'good guys'...
There are no "good guys". Well, actually, there are "good guys", but none of them get elected, or manage to climb to power in places where they use other means of gaining power.
Expect more of this. When the nature of an industry means it doesn't really depend on local geography, resources, or much in the way of population, so you can really locate it anywhere you can get power and a data trunk... suddenly some otherwise undistinguished location in the middle of nowhere becomes a perfect location.
We have to use up all the fossil fuels before the alternatives become sufficiently economically viable. In the end, they will all be used up, right? So sooner is better than later.
That would be true if they didn't have other important non-fuel uses, and if using them has no environmental impact. Alas, neither of these things are true.
Whatever fossil fuels we don't use, China and India will use.
Not if better alternatives become more widespread. I don't know about India, but the Chinese are starting to scream about environmental issues loud enough that even a totalitarian government can't ignore it.
I moved from California back to Iowa, where I grew up, to get away from becoming a colony of India. Now where do I move?
Perhaps you should stop hating Indians so much that you feel the need to move away from them.
I always wonder why M$ refers to their business centers as a "Campus"...
campus [noun]
...
5. a large, usually suburban, landscaped business or industrial site.
I'm going to venture a guess that when they refer to one of their business centers as a "campus", it's because it is large, possibly suburban, and landscaped.
... Come on, "bridging the distance" between the west and east coasts? We all know how fast light travels...
When you're playing games like Quake, there's a difference between a 50ms ping and a 100ms ping.
Apparently, we don't all know how fast light travels. xD
It's a symbiotic relationship. If it works out as expected everybody in Iowa benefits.
That's always the propaganda. Sometimes it's even true. The occasional jackpot gives the politicians cover for continuing to engage in crony capitalism without outraging the public too much. I wouldn't even mind that if the payoff occurred more consistently (cf. my previous message about no longer caring if people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, as long as they do the right thing). As it stands, though, crony capitalism seems to cost more than it nets...
of course, their "gayest" city, Iowa City, has a single gay bar not much bigger than a minivan. conclusion: Iowa's gay marriage law was a tourist attraction trial balloon.
I've given up on hoping people will do the right thing for the right reasons. I'm now content when people do the right thing, regardless.
No. You're imagining things.
I used to imagine that whining so well that when we closed down the computer lab in school, I'd known when someone left a monitor on when they turned their computer off, and walk right to the monitor that was still on and turn it off, too, just by following the imagined sound. Since being able to hear 15khz is apparently an imagined ability, I was apparently using my psychic powers instead to find the monitor that was still on. Now doubt this is a much more believable explanation.
Indeed. Phosphor persistence wasn't that persistent. I could see the flicker on CRT displays. I don't notice any flicker on modern backlit displays, though...
Spoken like a true brainwashed robot, parroting your propaganda. Meanwhile, real people capable of thinking for themselves understand the concept of using different tools in different situations, and know that sometimes it's better to be centralized, and sometimes better to be decentralized. Both bits of software are made for people trying to solve similar problems, but with different nuances.
... As long as you can get them to commit the changes, you're ensured that those changes are now on a server/machine that is getting backed up and taken care of.
I solved this problem at my last job by setting up a testing environment that pulled changes from the repository. It helped that the system being worked on was large and complex enough that it would be a pain in the ass to try to set up a local copy on your own machine for testing, so everyone would just use the test server, which, in order to use, required a commit to the development repository so the test server could pull the commit and put it into testing (in fact, this was accomplished in the post-commit script). The SVN server would receive commits from every developer continually through the day, and even the tiny change always had at least one "backup" somewhere.
The only downside to this is commit log pollution, but it wasn't really a problem -- these tiny commits would just have an empty log comment that could be easily ignored, and when things were finally working well, the changes would then be merged into the main branch with a properly documented commit.
/eyeroll
You can do whatever you want with your own software. Only other people require a license, and are bound by the terms of it. License terms do not apply to the copyright owner -- that doesn't even make any sense.
IMHO, it does seem like stealing from the people that gave their time for free to contribute to the software.
You cannot steal what already belongs to you. Even if it was a gift.
Sure they do! A few years ago, Microsoft was found guilty of violating the laws, and received a harsh sentence. They had to give people coupons or something...
Exactly. Trolls and fanboys are a signal-to-noise issue, nothing more.
...and when there's too much noise, it drowns out the signal. Trolls allowed to run amok are an effective form of censorship, preventing anyone else from having their voice heard. The "grow a skin or log off" group think censorship is fine, as long as it's not done by moderators.
For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world.
Ha, I wish... all I get to vote for is politicians. We don't actually get to vote for the people the politicians take their orders from, nor are the people who set and implement national military or economic policy in any way democratically selected or answerable to anyone but (in theory) their shareholders (and even that's not really the case).
There is no requirement to hold a trial for POWs.
What's that got to do with anything? We're insisting that these people are not POWs (otherwise, they'd be entitled to a bunch of protections under the Geneva convention).
Now now, don't confuse Senator Obama with President Obama. They're entirely different people...
(I'm not sure to what extent I'm joking...)
That seems a bit of a stretch. The more straightforward insidious reason to report the second half of last year's data is because it looks a lot better than the first half of the year's data. People will see 9-10 thousand in half a year and assume, okay, that means about 18-20 thousand in a year, when in fact the whole year's stats were much worse...
Even if they are using SSL between the front end and the middle tier, self signed certs are probably used between those layers and its "game over" anyway in that case.
You think whether the cert is self-signed or not is relevant in this case, you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Having Verisign sign the cert wouldn't do jack-diddly-squat here.
Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.
Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.
The really obvious flaw in your logic is that it requires more than the claim to be true. If I claim the US is secretly recording the content of conversations between Americans (based on my personal speculation), that doesn't make me a traitor, even if it's true. On the other hand, I'm arguably a traitor if the government gives me access to that information and I then betray my NDA/oath/security clearance and reveal it. He really did need to have the access he claims, or it's not really treason, because he's not revealing anything, he's just speculating and saying frankly what speculators on Slashdot have been saying for years. They don't all become traitors if their speculation turns out to be correct.