Since at least 1999, Cisco executives have been saying that Cisco is really a software company - anybody can buy the same chips they buy and build similar hardware. Cisco invented HSRP, GLBP, PaGP, CDP,VTP, PVST/PVST+, RPVST+, MSTP, IGRP, EIGRP, CGMP, etc. before other companies followed them and started using similar vendor-neutral protocols.
For centuries, pirates were considered hostis humani generis, enemies of the human race, and any ship could arrest pirates on the high seas, try them, and execute them. A trial was required (if at all possible) because pirate ships often included people who were kidnapped or otherwise coerced to join the crew. Still today, on the high seas any nation may arrest and try pirates, but certain human rights protections have been added by treaty.
International piracy law in general refers to piracy on the high seas (international waters). Most modern piracy occurs in territorial waters, though. In territorial waters, the nation who controls that territoy has jurisdiction and has the option to authorize any action. An exception is Somalia, which has a bad problem with piracy. Treaties allow signatory nations to take "all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia for the purpose of suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea". "All necessary measures" is generally thought to mean that unless lethal force is NECESSARY, it's not allowed. However, pirates shoot at people trying to arrest them, so lethal force is often necessary.
The Cisco vice presidents who formed Arista were paid by Cisco about $250,00 annual base salary, $88,000 cash bonus each year, plus $150,000 stock bonus. So in total they each got about $430,000 per year.
If you think that's ANYTHING like slavery at all, you you're seriously divorced from reality. I -almost- wish you could experience being a slave, or even a typical third-world citizen, for just five minutes so you could get a sense of perspective for your spoiled, entitled, whining little ass.
I'm not sure what you're saying / asking. Arista was founded by Cisco vice presidents who left Cisco and starting selling Cisco's patented inventions for their own personal enrichment. It was not "founded by Cisco".
As TFS mentions, "said Chris Becerra, president and CEO of Terrapin Systems, an Arista partner. " Arista says "wah Cisco is being mean to us" - after we illegally violated not one Cisco patent, but many, as confirmed by multiple hearings. On top of that, Arista is headed by a bunch of former Cisco employees. Sorry guys, when Cisco was paying you each $200,000 to develop new technologies, that was so CISCO could use them, not so you could take them home and sell them yourself.
If a bunch of people invested and risked their own time and money in the R&D for these technologies and came up with something Cisco didn't have, I would be rooting for them. When you're a Cisco employee living on Cisco money, working on Cisco projects, the results belong to Cisco.
Very often pardons come before someone is charged with a crime. At the Constitutional convention and in the Federalist papers, two reasons for early pardon were mentioned. It can be used as immunity for a witness. For example pardoning Hillary's email admin would allow him to testify regarding what Hillary asked him to do. That end can be achieved by the prosecutor's office promising not to prosecute as well. Second, for national reconciliation. Lincoln pardoned the confederates at the end of the Civil War, Johnson pardoned the draft dodgers of Vietnam so the country could move forward.
The likelihood that Obama will pardon anyone who exposes the government's secrets? As the fine summary points out:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama REALLY doesn't like people talking about how the sausage is made.
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
However, as TFS said: The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama pardoning Snowden is about as likely as Bill Clinton being a virgin.
What about Hillary Clinton? The Clintons have been in office or running for office most of their adult lives, since 1977. Most of her career, Bill was the public face of the the team, the actual office holder, while Hillary's role was PR, whitewashing negative information, from small issues of character to major scandals. For example, she assembled and led the teams trying to discredit women like Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones, trying to persuade the public that those events never happened and the women were liars. Her career has been all about HIDING the affairs of government officials. A whistle blower like Snowden, someone who puts the truth on public display, is her enemy, a total low-life from her perspective.
Regulations implementing the Computer Security Act of 1987 now require (almost?) all federal employees to receive annual computer security training. I guess you work for a state government rather than federal, unless your agency isn't complying with the law. Or you slept through the training and forgot all about it.
I agree. I don't know quite what the difference is, but other touchpads have always annoyed me greatly. I'm always hitting my Acer touchpad with my palm. The position and/or something else about my Macbook Pro touchpads have avoided that.
Trying to roll back the existing non-functional computer computer and get it working right again also has an unknown outcome, involves an unknown amount of downtime, and unknown total cost. Telling her customers "I can take care of you in two hours, after my new computer is set up" is definitely less costly to her business than telling them "I don't know when I'll be able to get back to you. My computer is in the shop. Maybe it'll be fixed today, maybe tomorrow, maybe Wednesday".
> by abusing the automatic update process (and doing their best to prevent users from keeping it disabled) Microsoft is being hugely irresponsible and endangering the security of users' systems.
Security is concerned with three things: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA). Those initials are used in the first few pages of any introductory security curriculum. You should have learned at least that much in your annual "Computer Security and You" training video.
The unauthorized Win10 installation risks the Integrity of the users' data and its Availability. Because it includes spyware, it definitely damages the Confidentiality. It doesn't just "endanger the security", it absolutely damages the security by damaging confidentiality. It is the OPPOSITE of the goals that security people strive for, the opposite of a security update.
> There's a problem with IT security in general in that those responsible treat security as an end in itself, and never weigh the benefits of their security measures against the potential loss and disruption caused by the "security measures" themselves.
Fuck you for trying to blame this malware on "IT security people". It's precisely the opposite of eveything we do.
I did a lot of studying via video. About 125% speed was pretty good for material I didn't already know, depending on the person presenting.
I switched to saving the audio to my phone and listening over my car speakers during my commute, at regular audio speed. I do turn it off when traffic requires my attention. In either a traffic jam or light traffic, I have the audio running. Between the commute and errands, that's almost an hour a day, so that's plenty of time to listen to a clip two or even three times.
> I wonder which group of Slashdotters will rule this time. The ones that say Linux sucks and systemd is the devil, or the ones that say they've used Linux since the 80s and everything else is a pile of shit.
Know who you're trolling. It's the people who have used Linux (or Unix) for a little while who see the problems with systemd. Those who think "Linux sucks" (Steve Ballmer and three others) are midnless Windows fanatics. Therefore they love the systemd/MS Office approach of putting every function anyone could ever need into one monstrous software package.
The way GSM works is that each phone takes turns using the radio frequency. Your timeslot is half a millisecond long. Therefore the phone's timing has to be synchronized with the tower with microsecond accuracy.
> Just lock down an account if too many wrong PINS are used
The bad guys don't care which account they access. Suppose you limit it to four tries at a PIN. The bad guys try 250 accounts with four PINs each, not one account with a thousand PINs.
Locking out the account rather than the attacker is just DOSing yourself. I like to call this the Broken MS Windows fallacy, because Windows does it.
JavaScript is has been the language all browsers support, but why? Also why is it so bad? The answer to both questions is the same:
Because it was created in ten days. While Microsoft was scheduling meetings to discuss a proposal to plan a browser language, Brendan Eich created JavaScript (then called Mocha) and released it to the public. It was used because it was available, while other options were draft proposals, not yet approved for development, much less ready to use.
When you spend all of two days designing a language and seven days implementing it, you end up with a pretty crappy language.
The opposite end of the spectrum is Perl 6, which was designed from 2004 to roughly 2015. It's a rather nice language, for those who like Perl-like languages.
Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".
I'm curious if you would agree more with a or with b:
A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".
B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.
Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. Sorry about that. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".
I'm just curious if you would agree more with a or with b:
A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".
B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.
You wrote a very comprehensive response. Thanks for that. I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint. I wonder if we could now focus a bit more and you could tell me briefly what you think about these specific questions:
> supporting coups of democracies - most recently Honduras and Ukraine
Clearly you're unhappy that Clinton supported the coup in Honduras. Would you be surprised or upset if you thought Castro supported it? That is, if Castro (or Russia) supported a coup of a democracy, would that be just as upsetting, or would you expect one dictator to support another? A detailed explanation is necessary.
You expressed great displeasure that the United States has a friendly relationship with the House of Saud, which is the secular half of the Saudi government. If Iran forged an alliance with one of the Saudi governments, whould that be just as bad, or would you expect one Muslim nation to ally with another? If Russia supported Iran, would that be as bad as the US working with the Saudis?
I'm very curious about your thoughts directly on this specific pair of questions.
What you describe is in fact current federal law. See 18 U.S.C. S. 922(n). A person under felony indictment may not recieve a firearm.
A similar law affected me. A pending class A misdeamoner is a bar to a Texas CHL. The deal my lawyer struck with the prosecutor was that the charges would be dropped if I got my CHL, but I couldn't get my CHL until the charges were dropped. I had to get creative.
Slashdot Mirror
Since at least 1999, Cisco executives have been saying that Cisco is really a software company - anybody can buy the same chips they buy and build similar hardware. Cisco invented HSRP, GLBP, PaGP, CDP,VTP, PVST/PVST+, RPVST+, MSTP, IGRP, EIGRP, CGMP, etc. before other companies followed them and started using similar vendor-neutral protocols.
For centuries, pirates were considered hostis humani generis, enemies of the human race, and any ship could arrest pirates on the high seas, try them, and execute them. A trial was required (if at all possible) because pirate ships often included people who were kidnapped or otherwise coerced to join the crew. Still today, on the high seas any nation may arrest and try pirates, but certain human rights protections have been added by treaty.
International piracy law in general refers to piracy on the high seas (international waters). Most modern piracy occurs in territorial waters, though. In territorial waters, the nation who controls that territoy has jurisdiction and has the option to authorize any action. An exception is Somalia, which has a bad problem with piracy. Treaties allow signatory nations to take "all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia for the purpose of suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea". "All necessary measures" is generally thought to mean that unless lethal force is NECESSARY, it's not allowed. However, pirates shoot at people trying to arrest them, so lethal force is often necessary.
The Cisco vice presidents who formed Arista were paid by Cisco about $250,00 annual base salary, $88,000 cash bonus each year, plus $150,000 stock bonus. So in total they each got about $430,000 per year.
If you think that's ANYTHING like slavery at all, you you're seriously divorced from reality. I -almost- wish you could experience being a slave, or even a typical third-world citizen, for just five minutes so you could get a sense of perspective for your spoiled, entitled, whining little ass.
I'm not sure what you're saying / asking. Arista was founded by Cisco vice presidents who left Cisco and starting selling Cisco's patented inventions for their own personal enrichment. It was not "founded by Cisco".
Thanks. I wasn't paying attention to which president since it didn't matter to my point.
As TFS mentions, "said Chris Becerra, president and CEO of Terrapin Systems, an Arista partner. " Arista says "wah Cisco is being mean to us" - after we illegally violated not one Cisco patent, but many, as confirmed by multiple hearings. On top of that, Arista is headed by a bunch of former Cisco employees. Sorry guys, when Cisco was paying you each $200,000 to develop new technologies, that was so CISCO could use them, not so you could take them home and sell them yourself.
If a bunch of people invested and risked their own time and money in the R&D for these technologies and came up with something Cisco didn't have, I would be rooting for them. When you're a Cisco employee living on Cisco money, working on Cisco projects, the results belong to Cisco.
Very often pardons come before someone is charged with a crime. At the Constitutional convention and in the Federalist papers, two reasons for early pardon were mentioned. It can be used as immunity for a witness. For example pardoning Hillary's email admin would allow him to testify regarding what Hillary asked him to do. That end can be achieved by the prosecutor's office promising not to prosecute as well. Second, for national reconciliation. Lincoln pardoned the confederates at the end of the Civil War, Johnson pardoned the draft dodgers of Vietnam so the country could move forward.
The likelihood that Obama will pardon anyone who exposes the government's secrets? As the fine summary points out:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama REALLY doesn't like people talking about how the sausage is made.
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
However, as TFS said:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama pardoning Snowden is about as likely as Bill Clinton being a virgin.
What about Hillary Clinton? The Clintons have been in office or running for office most of their adult lives, since 1977. Most of her career, Bill was the public face of the the team, the actual office holder, while Hillary's role was PR, whitewashing negative information, from small issues of character to major scandals. For example, she assembled and led the teams trying to discredit women like Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones, trying to persuade the public that those events never happened and the women were liars. Her career has been all about HIDING the affairs of government officials. A whistle blower like Snowden, someone who puts the truth on public display, is her enemy, a total low-life from her perspective.
> I work in the public sector
Regulations implementing the Computer Security Act of 1987 now require (almost?) all federal employees to receive annual computer security training. I guess you work for a state government rather than federal, unless your agency isn't complying with the law. Or you slept through the training and forgot all about it.
I agree. I don't know quite what the difference is, but other touchpads have always annoyed me greatly. I'm always hitting my Acer touchpad with my palm. The position and/or something else about my Macbook Pro touchpads have avoided that.
Trying to roll back the existing non-functional computer computer and get it working right again also has an unknown outcome, involves an unknown amount of downtime, and unknown total cost. Telling her customers "I can take care of you in two hours, after my new computer is set up" is definitely less costly to her business than telling them "I don't know when I'll be able to get back to you. My computer is in the shop. Maybe it'll be fixed today, maybe tomorrow, maybe Wednesday".
> by abusing the automatic update process (and doing their best to prevent users from keeping it disabled) Microsoft is being hugely irresponsible and endangering the security of users' systems.
Security is concerned with three things: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA). Those initials are used in the first few pages of any introductory security curriculum. You should have learned at least that much in your annual "Computer Security and You" training video.
The unauthorized Win10 installation risks the Integrity of the users' data and its Availability. Because it includes spyware, it definitely damages the Confidentiality. It doesn't just "endanger the security", it absolutely damages the security by damaging confidentiality. It is the OPPOSITE of the goals that security people strive for, the opposite of a security update.
> There's a problem with IT security in general in that those responsible treat security as an end in itself, and never weigh the benefits of their security measures against the potential loss and disruption caused by the "security measures" themselves.
Fuck you for trying to blame this malware on "IT security people". It's precisely the opposite of eveything we do.
Thanks for that.
+1 funny
I did a lot of studying via video. About 125% speed was pretty good for material I didn't already know, depending on the person presenting.
I switched to saving the audio to my phone and listening over my car speakers during my commute, at regular audio speed. I do turn it off when traffic requires my attention. In either a traffic jam or light traffic, I have the audio running. Between the commute and errands, that's almost an hour a day, so that's plenty of time to listen to a clip two or even three times.
use rust = Use Rust.
Its simpler safer and its better = It's simpler, safer, and better.
You wrote two lines. With 8 errors. Is four errors per line about average for Rust programmers?
> I wonder which group of Slashdotters will rule this time. The ones that say Linux sucks and systemd is the devil, or the ones that say they've used Linux since the 80s and everything else is a pile of shit.
Know who you're trolling. It's the people who have used Linux (or Unix) for a little while who see the problems with systemd. Those who think "Linux sucks" (Steve Ballmer and three others) are midnless Windows fanatics. Therefore they love the systemd/MS Office approach of putting every function anyone could ever need into one monstrous software package.
The way GSM works is that each phone takes turns using the radio frequency. Your timeslot is half a millisecond long. Therefore the phone's timing has to be synchronized with the tower with microsecond accuracy.
> Just lock down an account if too many wrong PINS are used
The bad guys don't care which account they access. Suppose you limit it to four tries at a PIN. The bad guys try 250 accounts with four PINs each, not one account with a thousand PINs.
Locking out the account rather than the attacker is just DOSing yourself. I like to call this the Broken MS Windows fallacy, because Windows does it.
JavaScript is has been the language all browsers support, but why? Also why is it so bad? The answer to both questions is the same:
Because it was created in ten days. While Microsoft was scheduling meetings to discuss a proposal to plan a browser language, Brendan Eich created JavaScript (then called Mocha) and released it to the public. It was used because it was available, while other options were draft proposals, not yet approved for development, much less ready to use.
When you spend all of two days designing a language and seven days implementing it, you end up with a pretty crappy language.
The opposite end of the spectrum is Perl 6, which was designed from 2004 to roughly 2015. It's a rather nice language, for those who like Perl-like languages.
But you forgot the Fappening. Great pictures.
Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".
I'm curious if you would agree more with a or with b:
A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".
B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.
Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. Sorry about that. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".
I'm just curious if you would agree more with a or with b:
A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".
B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.
You wrote a very comprehensive response. Thanks for that. I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint. I wonder if we could now focus a bit more and you could tell me briefly what you think about these specific questions:
> supporting coups of democracies - most recently Honduras and Ukraine
Clearly you're unhappy that Clinton supported the coup in Honduras. Would you be surprised or upset if you thought Castro supported it? That is, if Castro (or Russia) supported a coup of a democracy, would that be just as upsetting, or would you expect one dictator to support another? A detailed explanation is necessary.
You expressed great displeasure that the United States has a friendly relationship with the House of Saud, which is the secular half of the Saudi government. If Iran forged an alliance with one of the Saudi governments, whould that be just as bad, or would you expect one Muslim nation to ally with another? If Russia supported Iran, would that be as bad as the US working with the Saudis?
I'm very curious about your thoughts directly on this specific pair of questions.
What you describe is in fact current federal law. See 18 U.S.C. S. 922(n). A person under felony indictment may not recieve a firearm.
A similar law affected me. A pending class A misdeamoner is a bar to a Texas CHL. The deal my lawyer struck with the prosecutor was that the charges would be dropped if I got my CHL, but I couldn't get my CHL until the charges were dropped. I had to get creative.