"Your paraphrasing skills need some work. This isn't what was stated or implied."
I'm not the only one who read it that way. Generally companies making an assertion about the accomplishments of Linux somehow include explicitly words like 'the open-source community' or whatever to avoid the ambiguity. Red Hat has a history of acting like they are the shit, and has done a fair amount of work to get a fair share of credit, but still Red Hat would generally have everyone believe that they and they alone make Linux a viable platform, which is beyond what they have actually done.
"What you're (intentionally?) leaving out is that they're referring to enterprise linux market 'players'. How many players are there now? Two by my count..."
Counting players with significant market penetration, or enterprise players at all? I will admit Novell and RedHat are pretty much the only two to achieve widespread commercial penetration so far. However, they didn't stop at 'being the dominant player', the first half of the sentence, but said there would only be one at all. That includes Ubuntu and Unbreakable, which while not big now in this space, are players all the same. I said the first part of that statement would be an appropriate one to say for a business, but the second part screams 'we would love to be a monopoly if we could'.
"Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done."
So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.
"We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players."
Do they have to take it to the point of saying 'there can be only one'? I mean that is the whole problem with MSOFT, a homogeneous market. If he stopped before the because, that would have been sufficient and appropriate, but that last bit fuels the flames of those who proclaim RH wants to be the MS of Linux. Whether or not they can is another matter, but it sounds like for this person, this is a confirmed desired path for RH's future.
What about Novell's treatment of SuSE has made it less open source/sucky? CentOS exists to the chagrin of RedHat. RedHat would love to be able to and has tried to make life hard within the boundaries of the law, without being overly dickheaded about it. RedHat discontinued offering their distro for free download, and transitioned to having the Fedora project be the equivalent, so the RH name was made 'pure' commercial.
Novell at first look even seems to have made it more open. I.e. yast was not an open product before the Novell buyout, it now is. SuSE in iso form was at one point not downloadable (though you could install via network all the packages), but now OpenSuSE is out there (dunno how OpenSuSE's inception correlates if at all to Novell).
Truth is RedHat is ahead by market momentum alone right now. They were the first to get entrenched commercially particularly in the US. Their offering at the core is just about the same as any other distro, but the RedHat name carries it. RedHat and Novell are the big commercial players because they put forth the most professional images, and because they understand the product lifecycle that companies want. They have their differences, SuSE has a more centralized configuration app (YaST, which i ultimately almost never use), SLES10 happened to release at a time ripe for incorporating Xen virtualization (RHEL5 I'd wager will equalize this). The meat of it is they are about the same.
I don't see how Novell is sucking, did they start sucking when they started talking to Microsoft? I admit that single deal is fishy, but the company has yet to actually do anything that is sucky yet.
Not all tools make life harder, just a lot of the ones companies try to sell.
Maybe it's hypnosis. A company will sell it's software solution on how it will enable the client to do great things, and then get that client to pay *more* for complementary services because the developers did a bad job of making it actually easy to achieve great things.
Particularly when aspects of the infrastructure are Unix based, a lot of vendors out there will sell tools to help manage the whole picture, including managing *nix systems, and miss the whole point/beauty of the *nix philosophy.
They often come from the Windows world and want to make a monolithic application that is everything to everyone wrapped up in a single graphical application, and doing any particular thing with mediocrity at best.
Whereas good tools that get the point are almost never monolithic applications, but are implemented more as suites of tools than 'an application', each tool with greater flexibility to achieve its job well, but at the same time implemented in a consistent manner so the benefits of unified development is still achieved.
In most probable circumstances, yes, a particular individual who would require delicate artificial to survive will likely not be the better adapted to a realistic environment. However, if your environment is sufficiently resource rich/technologically advanced to enable you to be more productive than you cost to keep alive, it's almost certainly worth it to keep you around rather than to let you die off. Let's say you are a bed-ridden person who needs food brought to you, but you are so damn brilliant you are able to drastically increase resource utilization efficiency or show a way to greater resource acquisition. It's worth it for that life span to keep them alive. If able to attract a mate and even produce an offspring that had the general physical capability of the perhaps not as brilliant parent, but the mental capability of the bedridden parent, there was a very short term payoff, genetically speaking, for keeping that person alive and successfully mating. Even if they didn't quite pay off in their generation, if their variation mentally was unique and they were able to pass it on to someone without being tied to the physical deficiency, it pays off.
Additionally, imagine someone born who can't process oxygen from air, but somehow can do so from water like a fish. In the current environment, them walking around with a water oxygenation system is expensive because operating in today's society is nearly impossible as it is mostly land based. Now you keep this 'defect' with expensive breathing apparatus around as this person's trait grows in coming generations (because society can afford to), and you end up with a population of less effective water-breathers, but still productive beyond what they cost. Now some cataclysm comes where the land of the planet gets much more evenly leveled very quickly, and everyone dies except those water breathers who can now take off their apparatus and begin again under water. This is an unlikely example, but you can probably adapt it as you see fit for various circumstances to show how intrinsic detriment is often relative.
Keep in mind also that, assuming you do not overextend your feasible sustainable resource utilization, those with artificial requirements to live are only a portion of the population, with the rest of the population having no reason to die out. Let's say resource exhaustion or some disaster that makes the artificial means unworkable. It means you die back to your original situation, where your population would have been about the same as (maybe even a bit larger than) if you had never bothered with those artificial means to begin with.
If a population's current circumstances provide for accepting the addition of a variation without exceeding sustainable resource consumption constraints, there is no reason to reject that addition.
That is a future *assuming* that people who *don't* need invasive procedures somehow have selective pressures against them. The increased incidence of people living with disabilities or with defects correlates only to population growth above and beyond what would have happened otherwise if they all just died. Why in the world would the people who do not require excessive medical assistance die out? The tendency for a population that has reduced selection pressures is to grow a lot more including 'disabled' people if the environment allows. The 'healthy' people don't magically die off.
If you understood natural selection, 'diluting' the population is never bad. Genetic diversity to the extent that a species can pull it off always means more flexibility. See my other post around here.
For example, picture the population genetic diversity represented as a bell curve, with the 'optimum' being the modal value. This curve comes about from a whole set of selection pressures, which in an abstract way in this example maps in the aggregate toward that modal value being allowed to survive.
If your gene pool is 'more pure', You have a very very steep curve with a very small stardard deviation. Suddenly some aspect of the environment shapes the landscape such that anyone within two standard deviations of that particular curve would die off, leaving a small percentage of population which may or may not be viable, with a high chance of not being viable.
Now picture a 'dilute' population all over the place with maybe a peak, maybe barely discernible. Now the same calamity comes about and wipes out exactly what would have been two standard deviations of the previously mentioned curve, but now it's only maybe a half of one standard deviation in this, and new curve or curves form to accommodate the calamity from the much more likely viable remaining population.
This is a really abstract graphical way to complement the physical examples given elsewhere.
Natural selection is, in the most basic form, eliminating those traits that do not survive in whatever the current environment is. In this case, assuming that a defect transforms from near certain fatality to usually treatable, even if through human advancement of the 'environment', the environment simply has changed to not weed out that attribute, one way or another.
Really, if you want to have the heartiest gene pool with respect to the whole natural selection scheme of things, you keep everyone alive you can within reason, even if no apparent benefit can be objectively realized for their apparent defect. The whole deal is that when the environment changes, bizarre things can happen and the more genetic diversity your population has, the more able it is to survive radical changes.
An example is sickle-cell anemia, most common people with an incomplete grasp of natural selection would think 'that sucks, let nature eliminate that gene from the pool!'. However in the incomplete dominance model it happens to behave, a person heterozygous for sickle cell anemia happens to be much more resistant to malaria.
In the case of this article, let's assume some neurological pathogen suddenly becomes ubiquitous to the human environment, and somehow the brain stem 'defect' shields those with the trait. Assume this preliminary research is correct and leads to a cure for SIDS, for the sake of discussion. You have a hearty population with a now harmless defect that would be the only survivors. If SIDS wipes out that 'defect' and such a weird pathogen came, the species goes extinct.
To be trekkie for a moment, a good demonstration is when the TNG crew came upon a planet that eliminated all defective conceptions to not deal with the associated problems. However, their planet was saved from obliteration based on technology in Geordi's visor, which never would have come about in a society where they avoided having to make such a device. The principle is interesting fodder for science fiction, and that I think illustrates well the pitfall of 'let only the best go on'. Best is always relative to the current status quo, which is never unchangeable.
Not have networked voting machines, have them with integrated printers that spit out a scan friendly sheet, and then the user can review the printout, and feed it to the scannning vote counting machine (that people already are stuck trusting).
Or, alternatively, stop wasting tax money on voting machines instead of sharpies.
I always get the order confused, yes wireshark I frequently do low level network debug of software client behavior and server firmware interacting via network, so wireshark is a critical part of my job.
13 terminal windows,1 tabbed conversation window, two browser windows with some number of tabs, an evolution window with mailbox, a compose evolution window, a sharkwire window, the gaim buddy list, the gaim account window (by chance) and a source view window.
Total of 23 windows on current workspace.
I have two more windows (openoffice writer and yet another browser window) on another workspace.
The people that end up getting into office/holding onto their positions are those who vote in ways that look the best when distilled to 30 second TV commercials. It's natural selection when your selection pressure is being preferred by millions of mostly brainwashed sheep. It's nice to say they should be doing their job, but ultimately even if they all did miraculously get sane with respect to this, it would be a short lived term as it would immediately be devastated by the TV savvy competitors who can sway the sheep voters beyond all sane reality.
The only way to change it in the US republic is to educate the American public en masse and, most importantly, *make them care beyond their laziness*, no amount of fixing up your ideal candidates will succeed as a long term strategy until you fix that problem. Alternatively, get people to stop saying *GO VOTE* unconditionally. The media and most people say to be a productive citizen in a democracy, the logical thing is to vote, no matter what other circumstances you have or even if you know much one way or another, or even if you aren't particularly opinionated about the candidates. The media will lay guilt-trips on the voters by citing voting percentages and such, but that by itself just leads to more mindless voting from guilty-feeling voters. The creed should be to vote only if you care enough to actually know shit about the candidates, and if you can't be bothered to seek data beyond what the media spoonfeeds you, don't bother voting because you obviously don't care enough. It's important to get educated on the issues and vote, but one shouldn't feel they should vote if they opt out of the first half of that.
In today's society, candidates have a venue to put out detailed information on their voting histories and explanations and stances on complex issues on the internet without buying up impractical amounts of TV time, and that paired with a voting public comprised of a majority caring enough to research would lead to something sane.
That's just a token handshake between the drive controller board and the IDE/ATA controller. swap the drive's controller board and you could defeat it easily (or look at the platters). This tech actually implies encryption, which may be similar looking end-user wise, but harder to defeat (depending on their key management approach).
And they will thank you and subpoena Seagate for the encryption key. I suspect they will try to be functionally compatible with the current hard drive password commands used commonly today, and that means the actual key would be stored permamently on the controller board, encrypted using your password, but if Seagate chose to retain that key themselves, you could still be in a world of hurt.
If you actually care about protection from governments, legal actions from private parties, or malicious foreign entities that may otherwise acquire keys that Seagate program onto drives, you'd have to use a mechanism where you know the key isn't provided by an external party.
Note this is based on assumptions (article was light on details), but based on what I know about the industry, the encryption being always-on and the actual key encrypting the data being static per drive seems a likely outcome, as it satisfies most all business needs with the least amount of effort on laptop manufacturers and IT departments that use hard drive passwords in the present.
-added lag: probably insignificant particularly implemented in hardware. Software is for most people not noticable, if the hardware chip throughput can encrypt/decrypt at a rate that saturates platter read/write rate, no throughput penalties and the latency penalty is probable a couple of orders of maginitude smaller than the seek speed.
-That's why this is marketed towards laptops, and as an IT admin, Your policy should be fairly clear that laptop data recovery is best-effort (drives crash fairly frequently in that world anyway), and important data should be maintained in more manageable ways
-Why not? What harm does it do to encrypt all data when my first point holds?
-It's not really that dramatic. I suspect they use the same sort of protocol for password exchange that is used in the rather puny hard drive passwords used today. The encryption function/key is probably set at the manufacturer and the board probably just re-encrypts the actual key using the password data provided as if it were a hard drive password, and even if you never set a password/'turn on' encryption, that all operations are still run through the cipher with the mfg provided key, to protect the data if they ever do set a password without requiring a reinstall.
It does not *beg* the question, it *raises* the question.
And no I won't accept 'modern' usage, dammit I want it to mean what it originally meant.
The question *raised* is probably simply answered by Oracle's marketing having the perception that the linux market is where the growth is. Also, on the technical front linux enjoys a much larger open development community to leverage, whereas Open Solaris doesn't have that much of an attach rate from the community.
is not the civilian armament, but that if the government does push things so far as to evoke an armed response, that enough of the military would join en masse the revolutionaries, from all branches of the military (sea, air, land). It's true that situations like Iraq demonstrate that civilian armament is enough to give a royal headache to even advanced military forces, ultimately it achieves little if the oppressing force doesn't care about collateral damage, and even if they do (like our forces at least try to make a show of in Iraq), tactically speaking it hasn't changed things significantly, only significantly impacted civilian support of the American troop presence. And the armament being brought to bear in Iraq includes a fair amount of heavy-duty stuff left over from before the occupation, stuff beyond nearly all non-military personnel in the US.
You could fight the normal police force with typical arms (and even some atypical), but even just SWAT being called severely limits the effectiveness of your hypothetical revolt, and if the military got called in and didn't revolt any, it's over.
It's been a while since I flew, but I did buy electronic tickets last time. When I first got inside the airport door, the first and only place I presented my ticket printouts was to a clerk right near the entrance. They took the printout, scanned it, looked over my ID along with their screens, and then printed out a 'real' ticket that was a bit less ordinary (though still possibly forgeable if you had their cardstock maybe...). The ticket readers at the actual boarding point were picky about the format and form factor of the tickets it would take, so for at least technical reasons this had to be done.
Have they relaxed things to the point where the web printout is enough to get you to the boarding area now? Do a lot of airports now have scanners at the boarding area so they don't need a more special ticket anymore?
If nothing else, if airports had to be/were concerned, I would think the approach would be to have kiosks/clerks to scan printouts and spit out 'authenticated' tickets like they had to do for me.
However, as the site says, even if it works exactly as theorized it would, it doesn't get anyone on to a plane that isn't desired to, or get anyone past checkpoints without being checked for things that aren't wanted on the planes either. The risk begins after takeoff in terms of leveraging an airplane for larger scale destruction. Until a would-be attacker actually gets there or something there in his place, it's really no worse than, for example, a busy shopping mall.
Where do you draw the line? Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted. Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless. But then the problem comes that for a given purpose, any number of layers can be considered vital. If a desktop system, at least X, and generally Gnome or KDE is needed, so do you have to say Gnome/X/GNU/Linux in that case? If it's a particular config of a web server do you have to say Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux?
The line between 'OS' and 'Application' is fuzzy and some choose to cut off at the kernel, even though then it's useless, but everything down to init can be called an application at that definition.
Ok, in summary, Oracle will support only RHEL3 and RHEL4 distributions (per TFA). They didn't mention CentOS and said they wouldn't be packing it themselves, so the implication it is only copies purchased from RH. Best I can figure is that Oracle would be offering the equivalent of an 'extended warranty', targetting those who took the shortest support contract possible from RedHat and paying oracle with the rest, meaning either their hoping their name will carry weight or they plan to undercut RedHat for long term contracts.
TFA says RedHat doesn't sell the 'OS', but that's bullocks. You cannot legally get RHEL without paying for it (some of the copyrighted artwork and name), hence the whole point of the existence of projects like CentOS. Their fundamental business is built on support, but it changes not the fact that they do not give away the distro they sell anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your paraphrasing skills need some work. This isn't what was stated or implied."
I'm not the only one who read it that way. Generally companies making an assertion about the accomplishments of Linux somehow include explicitly words like 'the open-source community' or whatever to avoid the ambiguity. Red Hat has a history of acting like they are the shit, and has done a fair amount of work to get a fair share of credit, but still Red Hat would generally have everyone believe that they and they alone make Linux a viable platform, which is beyond what they have actually done.
"What you're (intentionally?) leaving out is that they're referring to enterprise linux market 'players'. How many players are there now? Two by my count..."
Counting players with significant market penetration, or enterprise players at all? I will admit Novell and RedHat are pretty much the only two to achieve widespread commercial penetration so far. However, they didn't stop at 'being the dominant player', the first half of the sentence, but said there would only be one at all. That includes Ubuntu and Unbreakable, which while not big now in this space, are players all the same. I said the first part of that statement would be an appropriate one to say for a business, but the second part screams 'we would love to be a monopoly if we could'.
"Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done."
So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.
"We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players."
Do they have to take it to the point of saying 'there can be only one'? I mean that is the whole problem with MSOFT, a homogeneous market. If he stopped before the because, that would have been sufficient and appropriate, but that last bit fuels the flames of those who proclaim RH wants to be the MS of Linux. Whether or not they can is another matter, but it sounds like for this person, this is a confirmed desired path for RH's future.
What about Novell's treatment of SuSE has made it less open source/sucky? CentOS exists to the chagrin of RedHat. RedHat would love to be able to and has tried to make life hard within the boundaries of the law, without being overly dickheaded about it. RedHat discontinued offering their distro for free download, and transitioned to having the Fedora project be the equivalent, so the RH name was made 'pure' commercial.
Novell at first look even seems to have made it more open. I.e. yast was not an open product before the Novell buyout, it now is. SuSE in iso form was at one point not downloadable (though you could install via network all the packages), but now OpenSuSE is out there (dunno how OpenSuSE's inception correlates if at all to Novell).
Truth is RedHat is ahead by market momentum alone right now. They were the first to get entrenched commercially particularly in the US. Their offering at the core is just about the same as any other distro, but the RedHat name carries it. RedHat and Novell are the big commercial players because they put forth the most professional images, and because they understand the product lifecycle that companies want. They have their differences, SuSE has a more centralized configuration app (YaST, which i ultimately almost never use), SLES10 happened to release at a time ripe for incorporating Xen virtualization (RHEL5 I'd wager will equalize this). The meat of it is they are about the same.
I don't see how Novell is sucking, did they start sucking when they started talking to Microsoft? I admit that single deal is fishy, but the company has yet to actually do anything that is sucky yet.
Not all tools make life harder, just a lot of the ones companies try to sell.
Maybe it's hypnosis. A company will sell it's software solution on how it will enable the client to do great things, and then get that client to pay *more* for complementary services because the developers did a bad job of making it actually easy to achieve great things.
Particularly when aspects of the infrastructure are Unix based, a lot of vendors out there will sell tools to help manage the whole picture, including managing *nix systems, and miss the whole point/beauty of the *nix philosophy.
They often come from the Windows world and want to make a monolithic application that is everything to everyone wrapped up in a single graphical application, and doing any particular thing with mediocrity at best.
Whereas good tools that get the point are almost never monolithic applications, but are implemented more as suites of tools than 'an application', each tool with greater flexibility to achieve its job well, but at the same time implemented in a consistent manner so the benefits of unified development is still achieved.
In most probable circumstances, yes, a particular individual who would require delicate artificial to survive will likely not be the better adapted to a realistic environment. However, if your environment is sufficiently resource rich/technologically advanced to enable you to be more productive than you cost to keep alive, it's almost certainly worth it to keep you around rather than to let you die off. Let's say you are a bed-ridden person who needs food brought to you, but you are so damn brilliant you are able to drastically increase resource utilization efficiency or show a way to greater resource acquisition. It's worth it for that life span to keep them alive. If able to attract a mate and even produce an offspring that had the general physical capability of the perhaps not as brilliant parent, but the mental capability of the bedridden parent, there was a very short term payoff, genetically speaking, for keeping that person alive and successfully mating. Even if they didn't quite pay off in their generation, if their variation mentally was unique and they were able to pass it on to someone without being tied to the physical deficiency, it pays off.
Additionally, imagine someone born who can't process oxygen from air, but somehow can do so from water like a fish. In the current environment, them walking around with a water oxygenation system is expensive because operating in today's society is nearly impossible as it is mostly land based. Now you keep this 'defect' with expensive breathing apparatus around as this person's trait grows in coming generations (because society can afford to), and you end up with a population of less effective water-breathers, but still productive beyond what they cost. Now some cataclysm comes where the land of the planet gets much more evenly leveled very quickly, and everyone dies except those water breathers who can now take off their apparatus and begin again under water. This is an unlikely example, but you can probably adapt it as you see fit for various circumstances to show how intrinsic detriment is often relative.
Keep in mind also that, assuming you do not overextend your feasible sustainable resource utilization, those with artificial requirements to live are only a portion of the population, with the rest of the population having no reason to die out. Let's say resource exhaustion or some disaster that makes the artificial means unworkable. It means you die back to your original situation, where your population would have been about the same as (maybe even a bit larger than) if you had never bothered with those artificial means to begin with.
If a population's current circumstances provide for accepting the addition of a variation without exceeding sustainable resource consumption constraints, there is no reason to reject that addition.
That is a future *assuming* that people who *don't* need invasive procedures somehow have selective pressures against them. The increased incidence of people living with disabilities or with defects correlates only to population growth above and beyond what would have happened otherwise if they all just died. Why in the world would the people who do not require excessive medical assistance die out? The tendency for a population that has reduced selection pressures is to grow a lot more including 'disabled' people if the environment allows. The 'healthy' people don't magically die off.
If you understood natural selection, 'diluting' the population is never bad. Genetic diversity to the extent that a species can pull it off always means more flexibility. See my other post around here.
For example, picture the population genetic diversity represented as a bell curve, with the 'optimum' being the modal value. This curve comes about from a whole set of selection pressures, which in an abstract way in this example maps in the aggregate toward that modal value being allowed to survive.
If your gene pool is 'more pure', You have a very very steep curve with a very small stardard deviation. Suddenly some aspect of the environment shapes the landscape such that anyone within two standard deviations of that particular curve would die off, leaving a small percentage of population which may or may not be viable, with a high chance of not being viable.
Now picture a 'dilute' population all over the place with maybe a peak, maybe barely discernible. Now the same calamity comes about and wipes out exactly what would have been two standard deviations of the previously mentioned curve, but now it's only maybe a half of one standard deviation in this, and new curve or curves form to accommodate the calamity from the much more likely viable remaining population.
This is a really abstract graphical way to complement the physical examples given elsewhere.
Natural selection is, in the most basic form, eliminating those traits that do not survive in whatever the current environment is. In this case, assuming that a defect transforms from near certain fatality to usually treatable, even if through human advancement of the 'environment', the environment simply has changed to not weed out that attribute, one way or another.
Really, if you want to have the heartiest gene pool with respect to the whole natural selection scheme of things, you keep everyone alive you can within reason, even if no apparent benefit can be objectively realized for their apparent defect. The whole deal is that when the environment changes, bizarre things can happen and the more genetic diversity your population has, the more able it is to survive radical changes.
An example is sickle-cell anemia, most common people with an incomplete grasp of natural selection would think 'that sucks, let nature eliminate that gene from the pool!'. However in the incomplete dominance model it happens to behave, a person heterozygous for sickle cell anemia happens to be much more resistant to malaria.
In the case of this article, let's assume some neurological pathogen suddenly becomes ubiquitous to the human environment, and somehow the brain stem 'defect' shields those with the trait. Assume this preliminary research is correct and leads to a cure for SIDS, for the sake of discussion. You have a hearty population with a now harmless defect that would be the only survivors. If SIDS wipes out that 'defect' and such a weird pathogen came, the species goes extinct.
To be trekkie for a moment, a good demonstration is when the TNG crew came upon a planet that eliminated all defective conceptions to not deal with the associated problems. However, their planet was saved from obliteration based on technology in Geordi's visor, which never would have come about in a society where they avoided having to make such a device. The principle is interesting fodder for science fiction, and that I think illustrates well the pitfall of 'let only the best go on'. Best is always relative to the current status quo, which is never unchangeable.
To stick to the damn paper, sharpies, and scanning machines we use in our region today.
Not have networked voting machines, have them with integrated printers that spit out a scan friendly sheet, and then the user can review the printout, and feed it to the scannning vote counting machine (that people already are stuck trusting).
Or, alternatively, stop wasting tax money on voting machines instead of sharpies.
I always get the order confused, yes wireshark I frequently do low level network debug of software client behavior and server firmware interacting via network, so wireshark is a critical part of my job.
13 terminal windows,1 tabbed conversation window, two browser windows with some number of tabs, an evolution window with mailbox, a compose evolution window, a sharkwire window, the gaim buddy list, the gaim account window (by chance) and a source view window.
Total of 23 windows on current workspace.
I have two more windows (openoffice writer and yet another browser window) on another workspace.
The people that end up getting into office/holding onto their positions are those who vote in ways that look the best when distilled to 30 second TV commercials. It's natural selection when your selection pressure is being preferred by millions of mostly brainwashed sheep. It's nice to say they should be doing their job, but ultimately even if they all did miraculously get sane with respect to this, it would be a short lived term as it would immediately be devastated by the TV savvy competitors who can sway the sheep voters beyond all sane reality.
The only way to change it in the US republic is to educate the American public en masse and, most importantly, *make them care beyond their laziness*, no amount of fixing up your ideal candidates will succeed as a long term strategy until you fix that problem. Alternatively, get people to stop saying *GO VOTE* unconditionally. The media and most people say to be a productive citizen in a democracy, the logical thing is to vote, no matter what other circumstances you have or even if you know much one way or another, or even if you aren't particularly opinionated about the candidates. The media will lay guilt-trips on the voters by citing voting percentages and such, but that by itself just leads to more mindless voting from guilty-feeling voters. The creed should be to vote only if you care enough to actually know shit about the candidates, and if you can't be bothered to seek data beyond what the media spoonfeeds you, don't bother voting because you obviously don't care enough. It's important to get educated on the issues and vote, but one shouldn't feel they should vote if they opt out of the first half of that.
In today's society, candidates have a venue to put out detailed information on their voting histories and explanations and stances on complex issues on the internet without buying up impractical amounts of TV time, and that paired with a voting public comprised of a majority caring enough to research would lead to something sane.
That's just a token handshake between the drive controller board and the IDE/ATA controller. swap the drive's controller board and you could defeat it easily (or look at the platters). This tech actually implies encryption, which may be similar looking end-user wise, but harder to defeat (depending on their key management approach).
And they will thank you and subpoena Seagate for the encryption key. I suspect they will try to be functionally compatible with the current hard drive password commands used commonly today, and that means the actual key would be stored permamently on the controller board, encrypted using your password, but if Seagate chose to retain that key themselves, you could still be in a world of hurt.
If you actually care about protection from governments, legal actions from private parties, or malicious foreign entities that may otherwise acquire keys that Seagate program onto drives, you'd have to use a mechanism where you know the key isn't provided by an external party.
Note this is based on assumptions (article was light on details), but based on what I know about the industry, the encryption being always-on and the actual key encrypting the data being static per drive seems a likely outcome, as it satisfies most all business needs with the least amount of effort on laptop manufacturers and IT departments that use hard drive passwords in the present.
-added lag: probably insignificant particularly implemented in hardware. Software is for most people not noticable, if the hardware chip throughput can encrypt/decrypt at a rate that saturates platter read/write rate, no throughput penalties and the latency penalty is probable a couple of orders of maginitude smaller than the seek speed.
-That's why this is marketed towards laptops, and as an IT admin, Your policy should be fairly clear that laptop data recovery is best-effort (drives crash fairly frequently in that world anyway), and important data should be maintained in more manageable ways
-Why not? What harm does it do to encrypt all data when my first point holds?
-It's not really that dramatic. I suspect they use the same sort of protocol for password exchange that is used in the rather puny hard drive passwords used today. The encryption function/key is probably set at the manufacturer and the board probably just re-encrypts the actual key using the password data provided as if it were a hard drive password, and even if you never set a password/'turn on' encryption, that all operations are still run through the cipher with the mfg provided key, to protect the data if they ever do set a password without requiring a reinstall.
Actually, I take it back, the chances are significant that reversal procedures don't succed.
A vascetomy is reversable afaik.
It's not Dotcom2, it's Dotcom 2.0..
It does not *beg* the question, it *raises* the question.
And no I won't accept 'modern' usage, dammit I want it to mean what it originally meant.
The question *raised* is probably simply answered by Oracle's marketing having the perception that the linux market is where the growth is. Also, on the technical front linux enjoys a much larger open development community to leverage, whereas Open Solaris doesn't have that much of an attach rate from the community.
is not the civilian armament, but that if the government does push things so far as to evoke an armed response, that enough of the military would join en masse the revolutionaries, from all branches of the military (sea, air, land). It's true that situations like Iraq demonstrate that civilian armament is enough to give a royal headache to even advanced military forces, ultimately it achieves little if the oppressing force doesn't care about collateral damage, and even if they do (like our forces at least try to make a show of in Iraq), tactically speaking it hasn't changed things significantly, only significantly impacted civilian support of the American troop presence. And the armament being brought to bear in Iraq includes a fair amount of heavy-duty stuff left over from before the occupation, stuff beyond nearly all non-military personnel in the US.
You could fight the normal police force with typical arms (and even some atypical), but even just SWAT being called severely limits the effectiveness of your hypothetical revolt, and if the military got called in and didn't revolt any, it's over.
It's been a while since I flew, but I did buy electronic tickets last time. When I first got inside the airport door, the first and only place I presented my ticket printouts was to a clerk right near the entrance. They took the printout, scanned it, looked over my ID along with their screens, and then printed out a 'real' ticket that was a bit less ordinary (though still possibly forgeable if you had their cardstock maybe...). The ticket readers at the actual boarding point were picky about the format and form factor of the tickets it would take, so for at least technical reasons this had to be done.
Have they relaxed things to the point where the web printout is enough to get you to the boarding area now? Do a lot of airports now have scanners at the boarding area so they don't need a more special ticket anymore?
If nothing else, if airports had to be/were concerned, I would think the approach would be to have kiosks/clerks to scan printouts and spit out 'authenticated' tickets like they had to do for me.
However, as the site says, even if it works exactly as theorized it would, it doesn't get anyone on to a plane that isn't desired to, or get anyone past checkpoints without being checked for things that aren't wanted on the planes either. The risk begins after takeoff in terms of leveraging an airplane for larger scale destruction. Until a would-be attacker actually gets there or something there in his place, it's really no worse than, for example, a busy shopping mall.
Where do you draw the line? Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted. Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless. But then the problem comes that for a given purpose, any number of layers can be considered vital. If a desktop system, at least X, and generally Gnome or KDE is needed, so do you have to say Gnome/X/GNU/Linux in that case? If it's a particular config of a web server do you have to say Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux?
The line between 'OS' and 'Application' is fuzzy and some choose to cut off at the kernel, even though then it's useless, but everything down to init can be called an application at that definition.
Ok, in summary, Oracle will support only RHEL3 and RHEL4 distributions (per TFA). They didn't mention CentOS and said they wouldn't be packing it themselves, so the implication it is only copies purchased from RH. Best I can figure is that Oracle would be offering the equivalent of an 'extended warranty', targetting those who took the shortest support contract possible from RedHat and paying oracle with the rest, meaning either their hoping their name will carry weight or they plan to undercut RedHat for long term contracts.
TFA says RedHat doesn't sell the 'OS', but that's bullocks. You cannot legally get RHEL without paying for it (some of the copyrighted artwork and name), hence the whole point of the existence of projects like CentOS. Their fundamental business is built on support, but it changes not the fact that they do not give away the distro they sell anymore.
A lack of quality sperm causes high cell phone usage!