Do you actually think someone in the white house said "oh, oh, they are killing innocent people lets support the"? Hey, we are talking Reagan years here. The defining characteristics were fanatical anti-communism and general cluelessness about what they were up to.
Unita were basically a vehicle for Savimbi's ambitions. The S Africans jumped on the bandwagon in order to destabilise Angola, relieving the pressure on themselves and (what is now) Namibia. Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher) quite liked S Africa the way it was, disliked the Communist regime in Angola and pumped money+arms into Angola. Cia sources indicate up to 1.5 million dead, current population just over 12 million. As to your comment on the Cubans and the Soviets, chicken and egg. The Cubans were supporting the Angolan government in their fight against foreign sponsored terrorists. Since the fighting stopped when Savimbi died, 20/20 hindsight makes it clear he was the problem.
The situation with Iraq/Iran was a bit different. If anything, Iraq had closer ties with the USSR. The key factor here was the hostage affair in the Tehran US embassy, once that was over the US was looking to punish Iran. I read claims from Saddam Hussein during that war that the US had encouraged him to attack Iran by telling him that the Iranian army was weakened and demoralised after the revolution. Rather strange was: Iraq attacked the USS Stark and the US reacted by increasing their support for Iraq.
Why do you think Iran had a lockdown on the Suez canal *before* Iraq attacked them? After the attack they tried to stop Iraq selling oil by mounting a blockade.
Your claim that Kuwait has always had close ties with the US is interesting, again, CIA sources indicate close ties with the UK but I have never heard of the US being involved there until recent times. Iran was talking about 'exporting their revolution' back then but Iraq was not acting as a proxy for Kuwait when they went in. Your take on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is close enough to mine that we don't need to argue that one. Why did the US not stop supporting Iraq after the gas attacks on the Kurds?
Years later Iran had a new government, Iraq was the pariah and then we had 9/11/2001. Iran promptly offered their support to the US and proceeded to turn words into deeds. Then came the 'Axis of Evil' speech followed by the invasion of Iraq. Iran had to accept that nothing they could do would be good enough. They have a new head of state and appear to be trying to drive the US out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) with all means at their disposal.
You are right. It was even one of his generals who coined it. I picked up the term from Bernt Engelmann's autobiography, some time I'll have to look it again and see if he used Feldherr or Führer. Facts suspect;-)
Back in the days of Ronnie R, the governments of Mozambique and Angola were: a) - Communist (they may be still be) b) - Neighbours of South Africa and supporting the ANC against the Apartheid S African government. c) - Opposed by S African-sponsored rebel organisations (S Africa was trying to destabilise the opposition).
Both rebel organisations fit pretty much any definition of 'Terrorist' you can come up with. The US under Reagan helped finance both sets of terrorists in the name of opposing Communism.
The Contras in Nicaragua were almost as bad and they were pretty much a creation of the US.
The Taliban were also US sponsored (via Pakistan) for a while, at this point the line between terrorist and freedom fighter becomes blurred. That particular turkey has come home to roost.
Now going back to the actual article here: Experts say Skype and other Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) calling software are difficult to intercept because they work by breaking up voice data into small packets and switching them along thousands of router paths instead of a constant circuit between two parties, as with a traditional call. If I was in Joerg Ziercke's position, I would probably announce that Skype's encryption was too strong once it had been cracked - to get the people you want to watch using Skype. Are the packets really sent along 'thousands of router paths'? Obviously the potential is there but I normally expect most of the packets to take the same route. A few years ago it was announced that digital mobile phones could not be overheard, I wonder if that still applies.
The term GröFaZ was *not* something you wanted to be caught using when the Nazis were in power. It is a (disrespectful) abbreviation of 'Größte Führer aller Zeiten' (Greatest leader of all times) which was what the Nazi party propaganda machinery used to call their big boss.
Ditto Germany. There is an exception: If a German nationality takes a second nationality, this is ok.
The German constitution states that Germans may not have their nationality taken away from them, that is in the constitution because it was a favourite trick of the Nazis and the founding fathers wanted to rule that out in the future. I met someone a few years ago with dual German/US citizenship. Her father had been posted to the US by his company (Lufthansa) and she was born while the family was there. The family later returned to Germany. I also knew someone with German/Israeli citizenship. Her family left the USSR for Germany and she took German citizenship. Later she also acquired Israeli citizenship. There was a government minister a few years ago with Brazilian (?) + German. It was at the state rather than national level but the same would have applied.
Where that went horribly wrong for some people was: It was accepted practice for a while for Turkish people who wanted German nationality to temporarily renounce their Turkish nationality and then reacquire it later. The reason they needed their Turkish nationality was that it is difficult to inherit property in Turkey without the nationality. They were held to have acquired German nationality under false pretences and lost their nationality again.
Some wingnuts in Germany are talking about introducing similar legislation (fingerprinting) in Germany. Not sure what their chances are.
Reading that German text, the Bletchley Park people wanted guarantees that the Germany would not declare the Lorenz SZ42 to be 'spoils of war' ('war loot' does not have the same ring about it) and just keep it. Presumably that is the reason the Allies have them and the Germans do not in the first place.
The German Ministry of Defence (DoD over there) and the office of the Bundeskanzlerin were also involved in the assurances that the SZ42 would not be kept.
- I don't care much about joining domains, would be nice but not essential - The lack of IIS? I would'nt use it if they paid me (unless they paid me a lot) - The dumbed down security model? That is the killer. I have software which will only work if I am root (or whatever it is called) for this reason. Software which I need. Having to boot up into protected mode to set rights gets really old quickly. - The 5 connection limit instead of 10? nah, not a problem. - The crippled remote desktop? I'll take your word for it that this is important.
The dumbed down security model is more than annoying, and I looked for a Home -> Pro upgrade (German language) and could not find one.
Maybe the new Linux NTFS drivers will let me boot up Knoppix and fix things from there. Grrrrr
A German court recently forced one of the larger ISPs to block access to the Youporn site. Originally they (the ISP) tried it by blocking access to the IP-Address but since Youporn is hosted by GoDaddy, that blocked their customers' access to thousands of other sites as well. Now they have tried it at the DNS level.
The background to this is that a German porn site had to implement stringent controls to make sure the underage did not manage to sample their wares. Youporn did not bother with this and so had an unfair advantage. I read that Youporn is something like the 14th most popular site in Germany.
Several other organisations apparently have similar plans to shut down access to some site or other.
The jury were annoyed / insulted that she was pleading not guilty and making ridiculous claims to support that when she so obviously *had* been responsible. If she had pleaded guilty and had tried to keep the damages down they (the jury) would have been a lot friendlier. Her lawyers shared the blame (at the very least) because they backed her in this.
What I found curious was that the juror gave out information indicating which members of the jury were asking for. Is that legal?
A study carried out by McAfee and North Carolina School of the Arts says users need to buy more virus scanners. I'd have been amazed if a McAfee study had reached another conclusion.
I'd cheerfully forgive them if they then pulled a trick a bit like one of the Gnu licenses - "if you use this method then you can't patent the result".
What were the adoption figures in the early days of Win2K (which brought native USB support) or XP? Probably just as poor - at least in the case of XP.
None of the companies I have worked for recently have been quick to adopt a new level of Windows. Anyone who expects large companies to leap aboard the Vista bandwagon now is simply deluded. The standard 'wisdom' is that Vista will only start to catch on in a corporate environment once SP1 has been released.
You missed the next bit: SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers. This goes beyond marketing-speak lying, I don't know about the US but in Germany, telling big whoppers like that in order to manipulate share prices can land you with a large fine or even jail time. I wonder what the post-Enron legislation is going to mean in this case.
In England, what NetApp appears to be doing is called shouting Get Your Tanks Off My Lawn. NetApp says this is aimed at Sun and only Sun - not customers. What is their track record?
That is called 'indecent exposure' where I come from and can get you a criminal record as a sex offender. Put your magic wand away.
Re:The winds were NOT very high this morning....
on
Steve Fossett Missing
·
· Score: 1
What was that saying?
There are bold pilots and there are bold pilots, but no old bold pilots. Fossett took some extreme risks - knowing what he was doing - but this routine flight seems too stupid to have ended fatally. All will no doubt be revealed. It had better not be a publicity stunt.
The GP's comment on the Power Supply is spot on. Different power supplies behave differently under different loads (doh!). Some are more efficient when the load is low, others are better under high loads.
Where AMD has an advantage is having the memory controller in the processor.
Some Linux updates come with the request for you to restart the affected service (Samba for example) and kernel updates basically leave you in the situation that modprobe has its difficulties. Being a wimp, I reboot my PC (a desktop) when that happens.
From tfa: as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update. afaik patches which come in via Windows Update (tm) are provided by Microsoft (tm).
Wait until Darl McBride (?) or one of his inner circle publishes the inside story - how a well known PC software company bankrolled SCO's scorched earth attack on IBM and Linux. Ooops.
Even if they had been worried about the lawsuit, companies like Novell and Red Hat were prepared to cover their customers. I am not sure how much that was *worth* - if Linux had gone down the tubes then Red Hat and Novell would have gone down as well.
I don't understand this. The charitable organisation he represents has indirectly caused serious problems. They are trying to export the Wahabi brand of Islam, a strict interpretation which basically treats females as third class citizens. The last time I looked, women were not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
The next layer of trouble is caused by the ruling classes in Saudi Arabia only paying lip service to their religion. This is what originally upset Bin Laden so much and set him on his way to being the fun loving purveyor of joy he is today. The people involved in September 11 were (all?) Wahabis. To me this means it is acceptable to follow an organisation spreading the Wahabi Word rather closely. What I do not understand is: why couldn't the NSA be bothered to stick to the laws of the country they are allegedly defending?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you actually think someone in the white house said "oh, oh, they are killing innocent people lets support the"? Hey, we are talking Reagan years here. The defining characteristics were fanatical anti-communism and general cluelessness about what they were up to.
Unita were basically a vehicle for Savimbi's ambitions. The S Africans jumped on the bandwagon in order to destabilise Angola, relieving the pressure on themselves and (what is now) Namibia. Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher) quite liked S Africa the way it was, disliked the Communist regime in Angola and pumped money+arms into Angola. Cia sources indicate up to 1.5 million dead, current population just over 12 million. As to your comment on the Cubans and the Soviets, chicken and egg. The Cubans were supporting the Angolan government in their fight against foreign sponsored terrorists. Since the fighting stopped when Savimbi died, 20/20 hindsight makes it clear he was the problem.
The situation with Iraq/Iran was a bit different. If anything, Iraq had closer ties with the USSR. The key factor here was the hostage affair in the Tehran US embassy, once that was over the US was looking to punish Iran. I read claims from Saddam Hussein during that war that the US had encouraged him to attack Iran by telling him that the Iranian army was weakened and demoralised after the revolution. Rather strange was: Iraq attacked the USS Stark and the US reacted by increasing their support for Iraq.
Why do you think Iran had a lockdown on the Suez canal *before* Iraq attacked them? After the attack they tried to stop Iraq selling oil by mounting a blockade.
Your claim that Kuwait has always had close ties with the US is interesting, again, CIA sources indicate close ties with the UK but I have never heard of the US being involved there until recent times. Iran was talking about 'exporting their revolution' back then but Iraq was not acting as a proxy for Kuwait when they went in. Your take on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is close enough to mine that we don't need to argue that one. Why did the US not stop supporting Iraq after the gas attacks on the Kurds?
Years later Iran had a new government, Iraq was the pariah and then we had 9/11/2001. Iran promptly offered their support to the US and proceeded to turn words into deeds. Then came the 'Axis of Evil' speech followed by the invasion of Iraq. Iran had to accept that nothing they could do would be good enough. They have a new head of state and appear to be trying to drive the US out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) with all means at their disposal.
You are right. It was even one of his generals who coined it. I picked up the term from Bernt Engelmann's autobiography, some time I'll have to look it again and see if he used Feldherr or Führer. Facts suspect ;-)
Back in the days of Ronnie R, the governments of Mozambique and Angola were:
a) - Communist (they may be still be)
b) - Neighbours of South Africa and supporting the ANC against the Apartheid S African government.
c) - Opposed by S African-sponsored rebel organisations (S Africa was trying to destabilise the opposition).
Both rebel organisations fit pretty much any definition of 'Terrorist' you can come up with. The US under Reagan helped finance both sets of terrorists in the name of opposing Communism.
The Contras in Nicaragua were almost as bad and they were pretty much a creation of the US.
The Taliban were also US sponsored (via Pakistan) for a while, at this point the line between terrorist and freedom fighter becomes blurred. That particular turkey has come home to roost.
Now going back to the actual article here:
Experts say Skype and other Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) calling software are difficult to intercept because they work by breaking up voice data into small packets and switching them along thousands of router paths instead of a constant circuit between two parties, as with a traditional call.
If I was in Joerg Ziercke's position, I would probably announce that Skype's encryption was too strong once it had been cracked - to get the people you want to watch using Skype. Are the packets really sent along 'thousands of router paths'? Obviously the potential is there but I normally expect most of the packets to take the same route.
A few years ago it was announced that digital mobile phones could not be overheard, I wonder if that still applies.
The term GröFaZ was *not* something you wanted to be caught using when the Nazis were in power. It is a (disrespectful) abbreviation of 'Größte Führer aller Zeiten' (Greatest leader of all times) which was what the Nazi party propaganda machinery used to call their big boss.
Ditto Germany.
There is an exception: If a German nationality takes a second nationality, this is ok.
The German constitution states that Germans may not have their nationality taken away from them, that is in the constitution because it was a favourite trick of the Nazis and the founding fathers wanted to rule that out in the future.
I met someone a few years ago with dual German/US citizenship. Her father had been posted to the US by his company (Lufthansa) and she was born while the family was there. The family later returned to Germany.
I also knew someone with German/Israeli citizenship. Her family left the USSR for Germany and she took German citizenship. Later she also acquired Israeli citizenship.
There was a government minister a few years ago with Brazilian (?) + German. It was at the state rather than national level but the same would have applied.
Where that went horribly wrong for some people was: It was accepted practice for a while for Turkish people who wanted German nationality to temporarily renounce their Turkish nationality and then reacquire it later. The reason they needed their Turkish nationality was that it is difficult to inherit property in Turkey without the nationality. They were held to have acquired German nationality under false pretences and lost their nationality again.
Some wingnuts in Germany are talking about introducing similar legislation (fingerprinting) in Germany. Not sure what their chances are.
Reading that German text, the Bletchley Park people wanted guarantees that the Germany would not declare the Lorenz SZ42 to be 'spoils of war' ('war loot' does not have the same ring about it) and just keep it. Presumably that is the reason the Allies have them and the Germans do not in the first place.
The German Ministry of Defence (DoD over there) and the office of the Bundeskanzlerin were also involved in the assurances that the SZ42 would not be kept.
Speaking strictly for myself,
- I don't care much about joining domains, would be nice but not essential
- The lack of IIS? I would'nt use it if they paid me (unless they paid me a lot)
- The dumbed down security model? That is the killer. I have software which will only work if I am root (or whatever it is called) for this reason. Software which I need. Having to boot up into protected mode to set rights gets really old quickly.
- The 5 connection limit instead of 10? nah, not a problem.
- The crippled remote desktop? I'll take your word for it that this is important.
The dumbed down security model is more than annoying, and I looked for a Home -> Pro upgrade (German language) and could not find one.
Maybe the new Linux NTFS drivers will let me boot up Knoppix and fix things from there. Grrrrr
If the Russians are going to keep our Internet out, can they please also keep their spam in.
A German court recently forced one of the larger ISPs to block access to the Youporn site. Originally they (the ISP) tried it by blocking access to the IP-Address but since Youporn is hosted by GoDaddy, that blocked their customers' access to thousands of other sites as well. Now they have tried it at the DNS level.
The background to this is that a German porn site had to implement stringent controls to make sure the underage did not manage to sample their wares. Youporn did not bother with this and so had an unfair advantage. I read that Youporn is something like the 14th most popular site in Germany.
Several other organisations apparently have similar plans to shut down access to some site or other.
The jury were annoyed / insulted that she was pleading not guilty and making ridiculous claims to support that when she so obviously *had* been responsible. If she had pleaded guilty and had tried to keep the damages down they (the jury) would have been a lot friendlier. Her lawyers shared the blame (at the very least) because they backed her in this.
What I found curious was that the juror gave out information indicating which members of the jury were asking for. Is that legal?
A study carried out by McAfee and North Carolina School of the Arts says users need to buy more virus scanners. I'd have been amazed if a McAfee study had reached another conclusion.
They could even do that.
I'd cheerfully forgive them if they then pulled a trick a bit like one of the Gnu licenses - "if you use this method then you can't patent the result".
In my case I went on holiday. Without a laptop or any web access. My mod points expired and I have never seen any since.
At least I *think* that caused it.
What were the adoption figures in the early days of Win2K (which brought native USB support) or XP? Probably just as poor - at least in the case of XP.
None of the companies I have worked for recently have been quick to adopt a new level of Windows. Anyone who expects large companies to leap aboard the Vista bandwagon now is simply deluded. The standard 'wisdom' is that Vista will only start to catch on in a corporate environment once SP1 has been released.
Actually, that could be understood either way.
- the Plaintiffs' counsel notified Defendant
- the Plaintiffs notified Defendant's counsel
Maybe that is not ambiguous to someone who speaks legalese but that ain't me.
You missed the next bit: SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers.
This goes beyond marketing-speak lying, I don't know about the US but in Germany, telling big whoppers like that in order to manipulate share prices can land you with a large fine or even jail time. I wonder what the post-Enron legislation is going to mean in this case.
In England, what NetApp appears to be doing is called shouting Get Your Tanks Off My Lawn. NetApp says this is aimed at Sun and only Sun - not customers. What is their track record?
That is called 'indecent exposure' where I come from and can get you a criminal record as a sex offender.
Put your magic wand away.
What was that saying?
There are bold pilots and there are bold pilots, but no old bold pilots.
Fossett took some extreme risks - knowing what he was doing - but this routine flight seems too stupid to have ended fatally. All will no doubt be revealed. It had better not be a publicity stunt.
The GP's comment on the Power Supply is spot on. Different power supplies behave differently under different loads (doh!). Some are more efficient when the load is low, others are better under high loads.
Where AMD has an advantage is having the memory controller in the processor.
Some Linux updates come with the request for you to restart the affected service (Samba for example) and kernel updates basically leave you in the situation that modprobe has its difficulties. Being a wimp, I reboot my PC (a desktop) when that happens.
From tfa: as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update. afaik patches which come in via Windows Update (tm) are provided by Microsoft (tm).
Wait until Darl McBride (?) or one of his inner circle publishes the inside story - how a well known PC software company bankrolled SCO's scorched earth attack on IBM and Linux. Ooops.
Even if they had been worried about the lawsuit, companies like Novell and Red Hat were prepared to cover their customers. I am not sure how much that was *worth* - if Linux had gone down the tubes then Red Hat and Novell would have gone down as well.
I don't understand this. The charitable organisation he represents has indirectly caused serious problems. They are trying to export the Wahabi brand of Islam, a strict interpretation which basically treats females as third class citizens. The last time I looked, women were not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
The next layer of trouble is caused by the ruling classes in Saudi Arabia only paying lip service to their religion. This is what originally upset Bin Laden so much and set him on his way to being the fun loving purveyor of joy he is today. The people involved in September 11 were (all?) Wahabis. To me this means it is acceptable to follow an organisation spreading the Wahabi Word rather closely. What I do not understand is: why couldn't the NSA be bothered to stick to the laws of the country they are allegedly defending?