Also, US law has something called "strict liability".
In strict liability situations, the actor is liable, period. That's regardless of negligence, fault, or intent. Using explosives and keeping dangerous animals are common examples that make the reasoning for sterict liability fairly clear. If you're using TNT, or you have tigers, you are -automatically- liable for any damage caused; it doesn't matter how careful you were being. Speeding is a more common, though perhaps less clear. If you are going faster than the speed limit, you owe the ticket. The state doesn't have to prove that you knew what the speed limit was, you knew how fast you were going, or that the intentionally drove faster than the limit. If you did in fact drive faster than the speed limit, it's case closed.
So you could have the following schedule of penalties:
Knowingly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $10,000 penalty.
Recklessly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $5,000 penalty.
Sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $1,000 penalty.
If you send a bad notice, you owe at least $1,000.
US law has a well-developed system for identifying different levels of "be careful". They are different types of negligence. For example, if you drop your watch in my house and I find it, how careful I have to be taking care of it is different than if you put in a safe deposit box in the bank, where you are paying them to protect it.
One legal standard that could be applied would be "reckless". You could have a penalty for recklessly sending a DMCA notice, which means doing so with little regard for whether it is accurate or not.
You could additonally have a greater penalty for sending an inaccurate notice knowingly or maliciously.
FYI, Congress wrote the DMCA, not Google. Google is following the law.
Congress failed to include sufficient provision for reckless DMCA notices. A significant penalty for recklessly sending incorrect notices is very much needed. Since it's a law, Congress has to do that, not Google.
On the other hand, Congress DID solicit and make use of public input when writing DMCA, modifying the proposal based on public input. At the time, nobody foresaw that people would send Google would get three MILLION notices per DAY. Perhaps we should have predicted that it would become fully automated, so incorrect notices would be a significant problem.
Also, nobody has done a good job of informing webmasters and others about counter-notices. Under DMCA, if Warner Brothers sends a notice, the recipient has to take it down, BUT you can then send a COUNTER-notice saying "this isn't infringing" and they have to put it back up. Basically sending back "no, it's not infringing" cancels out the original complaint, but few people seem to know about that.
I accidentally hit submit before I was done writing.
> every hostile nation would have pretty much everything on all high ranking intelligence officials.
Would it be worth it to China to spend a million dollars trying all sorts of ways to get into the President's email, or the secretary of state? Of course it would. If they tried hundreds or even thousands of different hacks, would they eventually get lucky? Sure, probably.
Therefore they probably have tried thousands of times, and eventually been successful. I would be suprised if after all that trying they never succeeded. Once they got a toehold, it's relatively easy to expand access.
> every hostile nation would have pretty much everything on all high ranking intelligence officials.
Would it be worth it to China to spend a million dollars trying all sorts of ways to get into the President's email, or the secretary of state? Of course it would. If the
Agreed, unless it's pretty obvious that the material is probably illegally copied. Then it's reasonable to expect that before you build a business around it, you find out. Playboy content on Rapidshare? That's probably not authorized, that's fairly obvious. Actually from a pure business standpoint, nothing to do with law or ethics, you'd be stupid to have your business reliant on anything that's questionable. It's called due diligence.
I knew people who ran porn sites. They would purchase content from reputable suppliers, yet they STILL made sure that they got copies of all the relevant documentation, just in case the content producer or distributor went out of business or lost their copies or whatever. Knowing how real porn sites actually operate, it's not at all unreasonable to think they might know their content is legit - most of them actually do so. Just like the company you work for probably doesn't buy their computers out of the trunk of some guy's car in the parking lot of the supermarket.
Aside from the instances where it's pretty clear that it's sketchy, and it's a business based on this clearly suspicious stuff, I'd agree. In general, you don't know the copyright status of stuff you link to.
Of course, you SHOULD know that if you hotlink like they may have been doing, someone is likely to complain. Whether they sue you or just redirect to goatse images so you end with goatse on your page, it's likely to not work out well.
An analogy here is pandering laws applied to a pimp. "I just run a referral service for people looking for dates. I didn't know that these $200/hour women were prostituting." Yes you did, sleazebag. No, you weren't in the room when the sex occurred, but you knew damn well they were hookers.
That analogy might work if they were hotlinking Playboy. They weren't. Instead, they were using unlawfully copied images hosted on some server which they may not own.
Some people (possibly the defendants, possibly not) were illegally uploading the images to imageshare.com or whatever and the defendants built a porn site using the Playboy images from imageshare.com.
That's fun to talk about, and then there are the actual numbers.
Michael Dell IS well paid as the CEO of Dell. Almost in million salary and in a *good* year almost twelve million in stocks and other compensation. When the company does well, he's paid almost $13 million.
Meanwhile, the total payroll cost for Dell is around $2.1 BILLION. 0.06% of that goes to the CEO, 99.94% goes to the other workers.
Obviously the purpose of the acquisition is not "create more jobs". The *effect* is fewer, higher-paying jobs in the combined company, which should in turn encourage either more or higher-paying jobs outside the company.
Consider you have 10 people assembling computers, and the other tasks that actually produce the product. The parts are worth $10 million, the assembled computers are worth $12 million. Therefore, the work done by these people is worth $2 million. The "line worker" value is $2 million, that part doesn't change.
Now consider if you have 2 HR people, 2 IT people, and 2 manager supporting the line workers. They have to get paid out of the $2 million value produced. So a total of 16 people get paid from $2 million. That's $125K each, on average.
BY combining companies and getting rid of some of the duplicate HR people, IT people, and managers, we have this scenario:
Still 10 line workers, still producing $2 million of value. Now 1 HR person, 1 IT person, and 1 manager. A total of 13 people paid from the $2 million of value. That's $154K each, on average.
So reducing the duplicated workers means that salaries of the remaining workers can increase by $29K each. The company can have fewer, higher paid employees.
These employees each have $29K more to spend (a total of $377K). Maybe spend it on getting their house painted, their car fixed up, and going to a concert. That finances more jobs for house painters, auto body, and concert techs.
So net result is that their is money available for jobs within the company to get higher salaries, and some jobs move to other companies.
> I would bet that 2.6.x still has a significant install base under the names RHEL5 & 6, centos 5 & 6, oracle linux 5 & 6.
If those people want the newest kernel, they can upgrade the kernel fairly easily. I just did. The config step is based on the existing config, so you don't need to make any changes to the config. You can either just make && make modules && make install, or the equivalent using a GUI.
Yes, it is normal to be cautious of new things with unknown effects, especially when we know the effects will be significant, but we don't know what they'll be. The reason that's normal is because it makes sense; most people are smart enough to be careful.
Most animals avoid putting unknown substances in their mouth until they first look at it, smell it, then they have a small lick to taste it. There is one exception...
There is a certain group of people who follow one of these two patterns of thinking:
Pattern A:
No real thinking, just "hey that's new, let's try it and see what happens" (typically teenagers). Or "hey that's new (even though it's not), let's mandate that everyone must do it and see what happens" (typically these people call themselves 'liberals').
Pattern B: We need to do -something- about X. Y is -something-. Therefore we need to do Y - without any thought about the detrimental effects of Y.
Most people (and animals) are like that, the approach unknown things with caution, looking and listening for the dangers.
> I have convinced a number of grandmas to switch to Linux Mint. Not many complaints.
I've found that for the roughly 80% of users who only use the computer to access the web (including Gmail or other web-based email), the only time they care about the OS is when an update breaks something. For these users, 99% of the time, all the OS is doing is hosting the web browser. A long term stable Linux works great for them, CentOS or Ubuntu LTS.
My wife loved her old laptop, it booted in seconds, the battery lasted all day, it was small and light. It didn't matter at all to her that it was a Chromebook, so the almost only program it could run was Chrome. That's all she wanted.
Well Linux started supporting the new CPU features six months ago. Probably earlier inside Intel - when you're wanting to test your new CPU features before you release the CPU, you can either wait for Microsoft to use them in Windows, or do it yourself in Linux.
I know that was done with x64, AMD ported Linux's existing 64 bit support, then a few years later Microsoft released 64 bit Windows.
Good luck with that. This has to be a hoax article. The wireless companies and ISPs built their networks once, a long time ago. Since then they've just been raking in the money. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.
We're all still using 1G service because companies don't spend billions of dollars every year switching their entire nationwide network from cellular to PCS, then to GPRS, upgrading to CDMA, then GSM, then...
Nope, none of that happens, I learned here on Slashdot. The companies aren't spending $10 billion / year on upgrades, to 2G never happened, 3G never happened, 4G never happened. They built the networks once and it's been profit ever since. I learned that from Slashdot comments.
It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.
In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.
I'm not sure if you're a fan saying "best team ever", a troll, or just very misinformed.
If you're a big fan of Apple, that's cool. Your quarterback is the best ever. Steve Jobs was a genius. Beat the hell outta Microsoft! Stop reading here if you're a big Apple fan.
If you're trolling, you're late. Try getting in right when the story is posted for best results.
Lastly, I've been doing network security full time for nearly 20 years. Apple's iOS doesn't -completely- suck for some aspects of security. Convenience is of utmost importance with Apple iOS, though, and there are always compromises between convenience and security. Apple's iOS is not even the most secure iOS. Cisco iOS is safer. Cisco iOS basically runs the entire internet, that's how much it's trusted. (But even it isn't perfect.) If we wanted to expand to operating systems not called iOS, many are more secure.
This software is $500,000 setup plus $650,000 per target. So $1.15 million dollars.
Bounty hunters track down bail jumpers for $250 (if they're easy and for $5,000 if they're hard. ($50-$100/hour isn't bad for someone without a degree).
If someone is willing to spend over a million dollars tracking you, you'll be tracked. A million dollars will hire ten private investigators for a year.
There is of course some truth to what you say. Also, people actually believe things too, sometimes passionately. For one example, Al Gore believes that global warming is BOTH a good career tool AND an actual concern. The USSR actually tried to put nukes 90 miles from Florida, and politicians used that fact to their own advantage.
> Do you know what would have happened to the USSR had capitalism taken over? Not much really.
It's interesting to me how often people predict the past. Russia DID move to a market economy in the 1990s. GDP and personal incomes roughly doubled, after a turbulent transition period.
Red Hat has grown almost 100% over the last five years and has billions in revenue. The counter-argument would be Microsoft, but you may have noticed Microsoft has been open-sourcing stuff too, and making billions.
At the same time, open source saved my last employer, a government agency, a ton of money. In many cases, it just works better all around to share. The company selling the software and services doesn't have the cost of developing everything from scratch, and customers aren't dependent on a single vendor.
I don't know about that, but Microsoft sure is becoming a lot more like Google. They've been open sourcing stuff, they've made a major move away from selling software to a services and SaaS model, etc.
> but hear of far fewer cases of drunk driving and I have a really hard time
You certainly may hear about it less. On the other hand, German men have a 27% higher rate of death from cirrhosis of the liver than US men. In fatal car crashes, alcohol is involved slightly more often in Germany than in the US.
There may be less media attention in Germany, but the policies aren't actually working any better than US policies.
One benefit of having 50 different states with different being enacted at different times is that you can compare the results. When California tries one law, Texas does it a bit different, Florida does a public awareness campaign without a new law, you can compare the changes in each state to see which approaches work. The National Institutes of Health determined the two things that worked best are a) enforcing DWI laws - unenforced laws are clearly useless and b) raising the drinking age.
One person knows 100 times more about Soviet policy during the cold war than either you or I know. Mikhail Gorbachev knows what he was trying to do.
When I've been to an event with Gorbachev and heard what he has to say, he was pretty clear that both he and Reagan sought to destroy the other country. Reagan's goal was finally achieved on December 25, 1991; the Soviets had the same goal going the other way.
Asked about certain events which occurred after the Cold War, Gorbachev used an interesting phrase to refer to that time period, "After Reagan defeated us....".
Most systems sold in the last five years use ARM processors, and Linux, mostly with the Android UI.
If you choose Linux, you normally don't need the distributor to provide an ARM version of whatever software you want. If it's not already in the repo for your distribution, you just do:./configure && make && make install
Slashdot Mirror
Also, US law has something called "strict liability".
In strict liability situations, the actor is liable, period. That's regardless of negligence, fault, or intent. Using explosives and keeping dangerous animals are common examples that make the reasoning for sterict liability fairly clear. If you're using TNT, or you have tigers, you are -automatically- liable for any damage caused; it doesn't matter how careful you were being. Speeding is a more common, though perhaps less clear. If you are going faster than the speed limit, you owe the ticket. The state doesn't have to prove that you knew what the speed limit was, you knew how fast you were going, or that the intentionally drove faster than the limit. If you did in fact drive faster than the speed limit, it's case closed.
So you could have the following schedule of penalties:
Knowingly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $10,000 penalty.
Recklessly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $5,000 penalty.
Sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $1,000 penalty.
If you send a bad notice, you owe at least $1,000.
US law has a well-developed system for identifying different levels of "be careful". They are different types of negligence. For example, if you drop your watch in my house and I find it, how careful I have to be taking care of it is different than if you put in a safe deposit box in the bank, where you are paying them to protect it.
One legal standard that could be applied would be "reckless". You could have a penalty for recklessly sending a DMCA notice, which means doing so with little regard for whether it is accurate or not.
You could additonally have a greater penalty for sending an inaccurate notice knowingly or maliciously.
FYI, Congress wrote the DMCA, not Google. Google is following the law.
Congress failed to include sufficient provision for reckless DMCA notices. A significant penalty for recklessly sending incorrect notices is very much needed. Since it's a law, Congress has to do that, not Google.
On the other hand, Congress DID solicit and make use of public input when writing DMCA, modifying the proposal based on public input. At the time, nobody foresaw that people would send Google would get three MILLION notices per DAY. Perhaps we should have predicted that it would become fully automated, so incorrect notices would be a significant problem.
Also, nobody has done a good job of informing webmasters and others about counter-notices. Under DMCA, if Warner Brothers sends a notice, the recipient has to take it down, BUT you can then send a COUNTER-notice saying "this isn't infringing" and they have to put it back up. Basically sending back "no, it's not infringing" cancels out the original complaint, but few people seem to know about that.
I accidentally hit submit before I was done writing.
> every hostile nation would have pretty much everything on all high ranking intelligence officials.
Would it be worth it to China to spend a million dollars trying all sorts of ways to get into the President's email, or the secretary of state? Of course it would. If they tried hundreds or even thousands of different hacks, would they eventually get lucky? Sure, probably.
Therefore they probably have tried thousands of times, and eventually been successful. I would be suprised if after all that trying they never succeeded. Once they got a toehold, it's relatively easy to expand access.
> every hostile nation would have pretty much everything on all high ranking intelligence officials.
Would it be worth it to China to spend a million dollars trying all sorts of ways to get into the President's email, or the secretary of state? Of course it would. If the
> I can't be expected to know
Agreed, unless it's pretty obvious that the material is probably illegally copied. Then it's reasonable to expect that before you build a business around it, you find out. Playboy content on Rapidshare? That's probably not authorized, that's fairly obvious. Actually from a pure business standpoint, nothing to do with law or ethics, you'd be stupid to have your business reliant on anything that's questionable. It's called due diligence.
I knew people who ran porn sites. They would purchase content from reputable suppliers, yet they STILL made sure that they got copies of all the relevant documentation, just in case the content producer or distributor went out of business or lost their copies or whatever. Knowing how real porn sites actually operate, it's not at all unreasonable to think they might know their content is legit - most of them actually do so. Just like the company you work for probably doesn't buy their computers out of the trunk of some guy's car in the parking lot of the supermarket.
Aside from the instances where it's pretty clear that it's sketchy, and it's a business based on this clearly suspicious stuff, I'd agree. In general, you don't know the copyright status of stuff you link to.
Of course, you SHOULD know that if you hotlink like they may have been doing, someone is likely to complain. Whether they sue you or just redirect to goatse images so you end with goatse on your page, it's likely to not work out well.
An analogy here is pandering laws applied to a pimp. "I just run a referral service for people looking for dates. I didn't know that these $200/hour women were prostituting." Yes you did, sleazebag. No, you weren't in the room when the sex occurred, but you knew damn well they were hookers.
That analogy might work if they were hotlinking Playboy. They weren't. Instead, they were using unlawfully copied images hosted on some server which they may not own.
Some people (possibly the defendants, possibly not) were illegally uploading the images to imageshare.com or whatever and the defendants built a porn site using the Playboy images from imageshare.com.
That's fun to talk about, and then there are the actual numbers.
Michael Dell IS well paid as the CEO of Dell. Almost in million salary and in a *good* year almost twelve million in stocks and other compensation. When the company does well, he's paid almost $13 million.
Meanwhile, the total payroll cost for Dell is around $2.1 BILLION. 0.06% of that goes to the CEO, 99.94% goes to the other workers.
Obviously the purpose of the acquisition is not "create more jobs". The *effect* is fewer, higher-paying jobs in the combined company, which should in turn encourage either more or higher-paying jobs outside the company.
Consider you have 10 people assembling computers, and the other tasks that actually produce the product.
The parts are worth $10 million, the assembled computers are worth $12 million.
Therefore, the work done by these people is worth $2 million. The "line worker" value is $2 million, that part doesn't change.
Now consider if you have 2 HR people, 2 IT people, and 2 manager supporting the line workers. They have to get paid out of the $2 million value produced. So a total of 16 people get paid from $2 million. That's $125K each, on average.
BY combining companies and getting rid of some of the duplicate HR people, IT people, and managers, we have this scenario:
Still 10 line workers, still producing $2 million of value.
Now 1 HR person, 1 IT person, and 1 manager. A total of 13 people paid from the $2 million of value. That's $154K each, on average.
So reducing the duplicated workers means that salaries of the remaining workers can increase by $29K each. The company can have fewer, higher paid employees.
These employees each have $29K more to spend (a total of $377K). Maybe spend it on getting their house painted, their car fixed up, and going to a concert. That finances more jobs for house painters, auto body, and concert techs.
So net result is that their is money available for jobs within the company to get higher salaries, and some jobs move to other companies.
He got paid quite well for the McAfee name, and now he wants to sell anti-spyware software under that name.
> I would bet that 2.6.x still has a significant install base under the names RHEL5 & 6, centos 5 & 6, oracle linux 5 & 6.
If those people want the newest kernel, they can upgrade the kernel fairly easily. I just did. The config step is based on the existing config, so you don't need to make any changes to the config. You can either just make && make modules && make install, or the equivalent using a GUI.
Yes, it is normal to be cautious of new things with unknown effects, especially when we know the effects will be significant, but we don't know what they'll be. The reason that's normal is because it makes sense; most people are smart enough to be careful.
Most animals avoid putting unknown substances in their mouth until they first look at it, smell it, then they have a small lick to taste it. There is one exception ...
There is a certain group of people who follow one of these two patterns of thinking:
Pattern A:
No real thinking, just "hey that's new, let's try it and see what happens" (typically teenagers). Or "hey that's new (even though it's not), let's mandate that everyone must do it and see what happens" (typically these people call themselves 'liberals').
Pattern B:
We need to do -something- about X.
Y is -something-.
Therefore we need to do Y - without any thought about the detrimental effects of Y.
Most people (and animals) are like that, the approach unknown things with caution, looking and listening for the dangers.
> I have convinced a number of grandmas to switch to Linux Mint. Not many complaints.
I've found that for the roughly 80% of users who only use the computer to access the web (including Gmail or other web-based email), the only time they care about the OS is when an update breaks something. For these users, 99% of the time, all the OS is doing is hosting the web browser. A long term stable Linux works great for them, CentOS or Ubuntu LTS.
My wife loved her old laptop, it booted in seconds, the battery lasted all day, it was small and light. It didn't matter at all to her that it was a Chromebook, so the almost only program it could run was Chrome. That's all she wanted.
Well Linux started supporting the new CPU features six months ago. Probably earlier inside Intel - when you're wanting to test your new CPU features before you release the CPU, you can either wait for Microsoft to use them in Windows, or do it yourself in Linux.
I know that was done with x64, AMD ported Linux's existing 64 bit support, then a few years later Microsoft released 64 bit Windows.
Good luck with that. This has to be a hoax article. The wireless companies and ISPs built their networks once, a long time ago. Since then they've just been raking in the money. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.
We're all still using 1G service because companies don't spend billions of dollars every year switching their entire nationwide network from cellular to PCS, then to GPRS, upgrading to CDMA, then GSM, then ...
Nope, none of that happens, I learned here on Slashdot. The companies aren't spending $10 billion / year on upgrades, to 2G never happened, 3G never happened, 4G never happened. They built the networks once and it's been profit ever since. I learned that from Slashdot comments.
Thanks for that perspective. It seems your signature link is past its "use by" date. Maybe time for a fresh one.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...
It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.
In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.
See also:
http://illinoistimes.com/artic...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'm not sure if you're a fan saying "best team ever", a troll, or just very misinformed.
If you're a big fan of Apple, that's cool. Your quarterback is the best ever. Steve Jobs was a genius. Beat the hell outta Microsoft! Stop reading here if you're a big Apple fan.
If you're trolling, you're late. Try getting in right when the story is posted for best results.
Lastly, I've been doing network security full time for nearly 20 years. Apple's iOS doesn't -completely- suck for some aspects of security. Convenience is of utmost importance with Apple iOS, though, and there are always compromises between convenience and security. Apple's iOS is not even the most secure iOS. Cisco iOS is safer. Cisco iOS basically runs the entire internet, that's how much it's trusted. (But even it isn't perfect.) If we wanted to expand to operating systems not called iOS, many are more secure.
This software is $500,000 setup plus $650,000 per target. So $1.15 million dollars.
Bounty hunters track down bail jumpers for $250 (if they're easy and for $5,000 if they're hard. ($50-$100/hour isn't bad for someone without a degree).
If someone is willing to spend over a million dollars tracking you, you'll be tracked. A million dollars will hire ten private investigators for a year.
There is of course some truth to what you say. Also, people actually believe things too, sometimes passionately. For one example, Al Gore believes that global warming is BOTH a good career tool AND an actual concern. The USSR actually tried to put nukes 90 miles from Florida, and politicians used that fact to their own advantage.
> Do you know what would have happened to the USSR had capitalism taken over? Not much really.
It's interesting to me how often people predict the past. Russia DID move to a market economy in the 1990s. GDP and personal incomes roughly doubled, after a turbulent transition period.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Red Hat has grown almost 100% over the last five years and has billions in revenue. The counter-argument would be Microsoft, but you may have noticed Microsoft has been open-sourcing stuff too, and making billions.
At the same time, open source saved my last employer, a government agency, a ton of money. In many cases, it just works better all around to share. The company selling the software and services doesn't have the cost of developing everything from scratch, and customers aren't dependent on a single vendor.
I don't know about that, but Microsoft sure is becoming a lot more like Google. They've been open sourcing stuff, they've made a major move away from selling software to a services and SaaS model, etc.
> but hear of far fewer cases of drunk driving and I have a really hard time
You certainly may hear about it less. On the other hand, German men have a 27% higher rate of death from cirrhosis of the liver than US men. In fatal car crashes, alcohol is involved slightly more often in Germany than in the US.
There may be less media attention in Germany, but the policies aren't actually working any better than US policies.
See also:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitst...
US numbers have improved greatly since the 1980s - DWI deaths have been cut in half.
https://report.nih.gov/nihfact...
One benefit of having 50 different states with different being enacted at different times is that you can compare the results. When California tries one law, Texas does it a bit different, Florida does a public awareness campaign without a new law, you can compare the changes in each state to see which approaches work. The National Institutes of Health determined the two things that worked best are a) enforcing DWI laws - unenforced laws are clearly useless and b) raising the drinking age.
One person knows 100 times more about Soviet policy during the cold war than either you or I know. Mikhail Gorbachev knows what he was trying to do.
When I've been to an event with Gorbachev and heard what he has to say, he was pretty clear that both he and Reagan sought to destroy the other country. Reagan's goal was finally achieved on December 25, 1991; the Soviets had the same goal going the other way.
Asked about certain events which occurred after the Cold War, Gorbachev used an interesting phrase to refer to that time period, "After Reagan defeated us ....".
Most systems sold in the last five years use ARM processors, and Linux, mostly with the Android UI.
If you choose Linux, you normally don't need the distributor to provide an ARM version of whatever software you want. If it's not already in the repo for your distribution, you just do: ./configure && make && make install