A couple summers ago, in the neighborhood I grew up in (A peaceful lower middle class suburban neighbourhood, I never heard of a crime anywhere in the area the entire 18 years I lived there), a woman called the police saying that her 18 year old son was suicidal, and he needed help. When the police arrived, three officers shot him a total of 8 times in the back. http://blog.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2008/01/previous_stories_and_the_tort.html
Strangely enough - I live here too... and you may want to re-read the link you posted, because it doesn't support your charge very well. I'm not 100% familiar with the case, but Sibling covered my own thoughts on the matter... somewhere the whole story is missing, big-time.
I've had dealings and encounters with the police in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Aloha (towns sound familiar? they should)... and I can say with certainty that they've been --to a man-- courteous, kind, and just wanting to do their job and get home. I don't doubt that there are bad cops in there somewhere, but I have yet to come up against one. Haven't come across any in Tigard, but I suspect that unless there's some sort of space-time shift sitting somewhere on Scholl's Ferry Rd. that one has to pass through, they're liable to be decent as well.
Of course, I grew up in deepest, darkest Ozark-bound Arkansas (in the Northwest corner of the state). I learned up-front as a kid (think "1970's") that every sentence I spoke to a policeman had damned well better include the word "sir" or "ma'am" in it, at least if I wanted to avoid physical pain. Now things have changed for the better there over time (not 100% perfect, just vastly better), but I can tell you right now that if you treat a cop like you were conducting any courteous business transaction, you keep out of trouble 99 times of 100.
--
Incidentally, I have zero problems with oversight. Each town has committees and Internal Affairs offices that provide this. They also stand a good chance of having a citizens' action group that will happily pester city councilcritters and the Mayor about anything egregious. Take some time and look around - there is oversight aplenty without having to harass, persecute, and possibly endanger; you just have to know where to look.
There is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". This can present a legitimate danger if there's pictures or other personally identifiable information right there on the site.
There is a superior need for transparency in any society, but sometimes that has to be balanced against personal safety - including the safety of the cops.
As for the 1984 allegories? I suspect that you all-too easily attribute to malice what can be more easily attributed to incompetence, greed, and disparate desires that happen to run in parallel. For example, the Media manipulates to elicit drama and eyeballs, by which to convert into advertisement profit. Politicians manipulate and propagandize (in both directions!) in order to garner popularity, votes, and power (for both themselves and their ideology).
Trust me - having seen the US Government form both inside and out? I can say with certainty that as a group, it would be easier to put a colony on Mars than to organize that gaggle into any sort of overlord-type Big Brother organization...
Sorry, but unless you password-protect your public services, you can't have it that way.
The trick is (and std. disclaimers apply, 'cause I ain't a lawyer), that you opened your computer shares for public consumption, so anyone can "scan" those public shares for whatever they like (in reality, they're making a copy and scanning the copy - the only 'scanning' they do is to look through a list of what you have, like everyone else accessing those shares do).
Now if you password-protected the shared directory, and they got in without you giving them the password, then they'd be violating/hacking/etc. But - you can't go after 'em for doing exactly what you've set up the shared directory to do - allow anyone to download its contents.
I'm not defending the RIAA or anything but - like a vampire - the RIAA will only stay dead if we kill it the right way.
They seem pretty arrogant, but if their tactic fails consistently, then even the dullest legal type in the RIAA would want to change tactics. Nobody (esp. the RIAA) like to lose, y'know?
If enough folks know about this (e.g. I live in Oregon, so say they somehow decide to sue me...), then any relevant case goes 'splat' in a heartbeat, for a minimum of fuss and cost (prolly even cheaper than the "settlement" offered). I'm sure that it wouldn't take too much convincing to show the judge that the RIAA has no right to sue, based on a sole bit of evidence gathered illegally within the jurisdiction.
The only unknown would be how it affects a civil case as opposed to a criminal one. I believe that if your one bit of evidence was gathered illegally in a criminal investigation, it would pretty much obliterate any hope of prosecution, but I'm not 100% sure of civil cases.
Any lawyers in the house that can confirm/deny that?
Is it? According to String Theory, there are multiple 'universes', each having the potential to contain differing laws of physics and science... and they could easily superimpose upon each other.
In that light, suddenly the statement doesn't seem so self-contradictory.;)
But, philosophical monkey-wrench aside, when I originally typed the statement, I meant that these aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, Astrology has zero scientific basis for the ability to affect an individual's future. OTOH, the things it claims to affect (emotions, love, etc etc) aren't exactly rooted deep within scientific endeavor either. I stuff it firmly into the realm of spirituality/religion, and leave it at that.
Sure, Astrology and Science do clash on the merits (especially since Pluto isn't really considered a planet by the Astronomy community anymore), but the realms in which the two subjects live are as different as (literally) black and white.
I don't see any troubles with it... my wife is a practicing Pagan, and I have yet to see any conflicts over it.
Just because she believes in astrology and forest spirits doesn't mean that she rejects science and logic. Most folks who believe in astrology believe that it works on a spiritual realm, where (to most folks, IMHO) science simply has no foothold - after all, we cannot point to a specific chain of chemical interactions and say with authority that one's soul resides in it. They use mathematics and intuition to derive what they believe to be meaning for something that most of us don't believe they can be applied to (of course, a good share of 'em also use it to con and scam, like any other endeavor).
Besides, this whole article as based on a bad assumption - that women generally regard astrology as some sort of religious/spiritual sign-post.
Long ago, I have regarded science to be a means of understanding the tools and constructs by which God runs things, much like how we (built in His image after all) do the same thing here in the secular world (e.g. right now you're staring at a prime example of Man using science as a tool to accomplish a goal - your computer. Who says God can't/doesn't do the same to accomplish His ends?).
You don't have to be an Atheist to love and pursue scientific endeavors (else Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Galileo, and a whole host of other great scientific minds would've never bothered).
Err, as a former Electronics monkey, I have but one thing to say: Up your skillset, buddy.
Electronics? It once went from being a big mysterious thing that professionals were needed to maintain, to being a commodity item. Where once you needed a pro to trace a problem to a discrete component (IC, resistor, capacitor, etc), now any half-educated tech can trace it to a malfunctioning board, replace it, and all works well again. Consequently, electronics techs were replaced by generic maintenance techs.
If you think for one second that the world owes you a living because you know how to throw together HTML, CSS, and half a dozen other scripting languages into a website that looks pretty? Err, sorry, but no. It don't work that way.
I went from electronics to computers to systems administration, and am now flirting with programming and engineering as part of my duties.
If I sat there then (like you're doing now) and whined about the impending commoditization of a tech that I make money off of? I'd be living in a trailer park somewhere on Welfare, bitching about how life is soooooo unfair. Instead, I'm working for a Fortune 100 corp for a healthy salary and quite a decent life, with a hard-won lust for challenge and a constant eye on emerging technologies.
The secret is simple: instead of worrying so much about how your cash cow is swirling the drain, work on how to provide the best value now, and where to take you and your employees in the future.
How is Joe Sixpack going to figure out how to install and use Tor? What if he doesn't know what a wireless mesh is? What if such meshes and Tor are illegal?
You mean complex and 'illegal' programs like e/aMule (and its predecessor Kazaa, and its grandfather, Napster)? Joe Sixpack didn't seem to have any trouble getting hold of those and using 'em (and neither did his teenaged kids for that matter).
I also noticed that Joe didn't have much trouble getting hold of DeCSS and using it to expand his DVD collection by one hell of a margin.
Joe Bierstein in the mid/late 1990's had zero problems reading the Internet webzine Radikal from inside Germany, in spite of the entire German government going out of its way to block its access at the border. (Google for it... it's a pretty interesting tale).
I can't help but notice that Cuba isn't a haven of internet freedoms, and only a select few are able to get any outside information at all.
Err, sorry, but the clique of 'experts' would be just as (if not more) dangerous than the corporation or state.
Personally, and IMHO, as long as everyone is forced to keep to open standards, and as long as there are cheap and easy ways to access a network based on them, nobody can close anything off.
The Internet is (still) beyond the power of the individual or small group to control it. Put up a firewall? TOR springs up. Implement network throttling on certain types of traffic? That type of traffic will suddenly mimic other types. ISP locks you out due to political discomfort? You get another one who is willing to sell service at the same or lower price. Mandate locks and controls at the telco level? WiFi and NoCat springs up to build a mesh. Even Cuba, which has the tightest controls of any networked country, has one hell of a Sneakernet going on with geek sticks and covert data transfers... slow, but workable.
North Korea is about it for the ultimate Internet control, but only because they literally don't have an infrastructure installed, at least not outside of a few elite homes, palaces, and offices.
The closest anyone has come to a corporate-built 'walled garden' style of network was AOL (which had an "Internet" button to leave that network and get online). AOL's garden (in case no one noticed) is dead, and the corp is a mere shell of its former self.
To top all that off, corporations live and die by their customer base - the more locks they place on it, the less access they have to it.
Nope - I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Not 100% sure of how closely Australia tracks with US laws, but would this require a full search warrant, or a bench warrant, or...?
(and do they have probable cause laws?)
IOW, they still have to prove their case before they can start poking about, yes?
(and now more than ever, we really need some tech-savvy law types to get their asses into judicial positions, no matter which country we're talking about...)
Same here, but in the military. Dunno about the other branches, but the USAF was packed to the rafters with D&D geeks, my former self among them.
I remember playing a round of D&D once in the cargo bay of a C-141, on the way to a TDY exercise... beat the hell out of playing the same card games over and over again, and you're right - it led to meeting a lot of great people overall.
As long as objective scientific fact is presented and not used as a tool for propaganda in any direction at all.
'course, a semester or two of logic and rhetoric, coupled with one on how various scientific methods actually work would be more beneficial to the kids than all this faffing about with which biological theorems should or shouldn't be relayed as curricula.
Besides, it's not like this is going to affect TCP or IP or whatnot--this is way down at the bottom of the OSI model at level 1.
Therein lies the rub, I think.
In spite of the OSI model (which TCP/IP doesn't map to very neatly BTW) - if one layer sneezes, they all catch a cold (with severity decreasing by distance). You screw with one layer, odds are good that you're gonna screw with its neighbors.
A good parallel of standards and what happens to them when folks try to create new paradigms? It can be found as close as your nearest fiber-based SAN installation (in its early days, anyhow)... "doesn't play well with others" is the most polite description I can find for it.
I realize that Adobe's code can be... err, messy, to be charitable about it (at least judging by Acrobat Reader and FrameMaker).
Question is this: is this a step towards (hopefully) Adobe going over their existing products and re-writing them so as to make porting easier? I know they're working with Codeweavers to get P-shop to work on a Linux platform (via WINE), but it would be cool to see some native implementations instead.
I figure once/if Adobe can get things like P-Shop and Illustrator to work on a Linux platform, other graphics companies would have that final impetus to follow. While the higher-end CG vendors usually have Linux ports or Linux-native apps (Shake, Maya, etc), the mid-range, amateur, and pro-am ones usually don't (Modo, Silo, DAZ|Studio and Poser, Vue d' Esprit, Carrara, Bryce, etc).
It'd be hella nice to see the CG/gfx companies take Linux seriously across the board, and not just as niche/custom items, or as "hey, that OS makes a great render farm node!" type of platform.
Pre-industrial revolution there were about 500 million people on the planet. If we went back to subsistence, we'd be back there pretty quickly...If we were lucky we'd be able to maintain around that level.
Yeah, but it'd be worth it to avoid raising the temperature of the planet a few degrees, or forcing coastal dwellers to move inland. Wouldn't it???
Depends on if you're one of the 6.3bn people that have to die off in order to make this happen.
Everyone (and stupidly, IMHO) thinks that in such a scenario, they would be the 'chosen ones' who would survive the guaranteed calamity and chaos that would come with a majority death in the human species. In reality, unless you live on a self-sustaining farm way the hell out in Nowhere, are among the ruling elites running the (hypothetical) population reduction pogrom, or happen to live in a sparsely populated (and very little-known-about) tropical island? Well, you basically have a 95% chance of being fucked-over by the odds.
Of course, we could always go for enforced birth control, ne? But who gets to decide which folks get spayed and which ones do not? Again, the odds really, really suck in any given individual's favor.
#2 would be living space. Cities exist today because transportation can support them. Cities are also where the vast majority of people happen to live overall.
Put it this way - if the laws of electricity were somehow revoked tomorrow morning at 9am sharp, within a year at least 1/2 of humanity would be dead, even if everyone knew up-front how to live like a caveman. Starvation, Disease (no medicines anymore), exposure (wanna live in a cave up in North Dakota? Me Neither, but all the ones in southern California are taken), dehydration (places like Las Vegas and Phoenix only exist because we can send a whole lot of water there), predation (from both animals and from really hungry humans), etc etc.
I'm not even counting the wars that would immediately generate because of new scarcities like food, salt, firewood, and the like.
By the by, the resource demands would certainly drop for things like petroleum, but they would rocket for things like plants (for food, clothing and fuel), animals (food and clothing), clean water (no modern sewage treatment anymore, and everybody taking a dump outside will eventually affect the local water table)... Also clean air would be hard to come by. Nobody wants to die of hypothermia, so everyone's gonna burn whatever wood and plants are handy come winter... this means way less trees to go around once everyone gets done stripping the forests for whatever they can lay hands on.
The Gaia worshippers can talk a good game, but the stark fact is, you'd have to reduce the population to roughly 10% of what it is now in order to have any sort of sustainable hunter-gatherer type of lifestyle. This means 90% of everyone else has to go.
(personally, I'd like to see that 90% eventually living in space colonies w/ Earth as one gigantic recreational park, but that's going to take some time...)
I mean, really. Dr. Jacobsen's background speaks for itself. He is a widely respected scientist with years of experience in real world forensics investigation. Trying to win your case by smearing his name and reputation will likely backfire with the judge.
What smear? If he doesn't know what he's talking about on a given subject but insists that he does, it is perfectly fair to point that out, which this report has done. If his actions and testimony is borderline incompetent, then so be it. Name and reputation are only indicative of current credibility. If testing and research erodes that credibility, then it's his problem, and not the FSF's.
Incidentally, I believe that in the legal world the terms "competence" and "incompetent" mean something specific, and IIRC it is not name-calling to label an expert witness as either. (e.g. "competent to stand trial").
...when will they get jiggy with firing off amicus curiae letters to the judges of every lawsuit in which the witl^Hness testified? (or at the very least start passing around the report the defense lawyers?)
Why shouldn't people be able to watch it as they want to watch it? They should watch it as the people who created intended it, first and foremost.
...who said they had to? I'm not so sure you know what a story actually is. This isn't some tutorial or KB article - it's a movie. As in entertainment. This means the viewer can take it in any way he or she desires. If someone doesn't want sex scenes in it, what's the harm in their cutting those out for their own consumption? Are they suddenly denying you the right to see them? Of course not, since you still have access to the unedited original.
but I am not going to be happy with companies making a profit off of someone elses IP that they have butchered just to pander to the Ned Flanders of the world.
Cripes - you sound just like an *AA mouthpiece. Lookit - the whole 'clean flicks' idea is to increase the IP holders' profit by accessing a market that would otherwise not bother spending the money. The 'clean flicks' guys still pay their vig to the MPAA affiliate. Let me repeat that: The IP holders still get paid their regular rate.
If it's the fact that someone else made some dough off the deal on top of it all? Then kindly stay away from every record store, video store, eBay, used movie and CD stores, etc...
If you're so eager to keep the right to be hedonistic, "free", or whatever you apply to your person, then you had best start supporting the rights of prudes to be non-intrusively prudish within their own environments. I myself will happily support to the death the right of someone else to be as prudish as they desire, so long as they don't infringe on my right to be a heathen (you're reading this from someone who recently converted his old VHS copies of Caligula and Heavy Metal to DVD, so please don't point and shout "prude!" in my direction).
I realize my personal stance is a bit on the other extreme end, what consenting people decide to do is fine by me.
...unless they don't want to watch what you want to watch...
Whoops! I've never analyzed the details and intricaties of the Apache source code -- I guess I'd make a bad webmaster.:-(
I think what he was getting at is, with the source code available, odds are better that independent eyes have come across a particular convoluted problem, and has found the solution by studying the code as a last resort... giving you the solution in far less time than it would otherwise take by trying to crawl into the heads of Microsoft's documentation writers.
It's a variation (and IMHO an important one) of the "many eyes" concept for securing code.
Understood, but that's creepy to have a single (and dynamic) point-of-failure for the entire OS like that, which app+dog can (and often does) write to. Yes, I know there are two copies of the thing on the box, but IIRC, as soon as it successfully reboots and you log in (fully, not in recovery mode, IIRC), the backup copy goes bye-bye and gets overwritten as the current one. Not sure if they fixed that behavior or not...
I mean, at least with scattered.conf files, if one goes corrupt, so what? You only lose (some or all of) the one daemon that relies on it, while still being able to access the running server to fix it. The sole exception is grub.conf @ boot time, which (as saving grace if the conf file should go corrupt) can be edited and modified right there at the boot prompt. OTOH, if the Registry goes splat, you're not guaranteed much of anything depending on severity, meaning downtime to restore it at best, and a server rebuild/restoration at worst.
Not that I hate it per se, but I seriously believe it to be a huge potential liability in a standard production environment, let alone an HA/critical one.
so you add or remove / trun it on or off at any time with out havening to reinstall widnows server.
Err, on a server, why would you want to? (okay, so I'm one of those freaks who insist on running his servers at runlevel 3, but still... serious non-trolling question here: why?)
Slashdot Mirror
http://blog.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2008/01/previous_stories_and_the_tort.html
Strangely enough - I live here too... and you may want to re-read the link you posted, because it doesn't support your charge very well. I'm not 100% familiar with the case, but Sibling covered my own thoughts on the matter... somewhere the whole story is missing, big-time.
I've had dealings and encounters with the police in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Aloha (towns sound familiar? they should)... and I can say with certainty that they've been --to a man-- courteous, kind, and just wanting to do their job and get home. I don't doubt that there are bad cops in there somewhere, but I have yet to come up against one. Haven't come across any in Tigard, but I suspect that unless there's some sort of space-time shift sitting somewhere on Scholl's Ferry Rd. that one has to pass through, they're liable to be decent as well.
Of course, I grew up in deepest, darkest Ozark-bound Arkansas (in the Northwest corner of the state). I learned up-front as a kid (think "1970's") that every sentence I spoke to a policeman had damned well better include the word "sir" or "ma'am" in it, at least if I wanted to avoid physical pain. Now things have changed for the better there over time (not 100% perfect, just vastly better), but I can tell you right now that if you treat a cop like you were conducting any courteous business transaction, you keep out of trouble 99 times of 100.
--
Incidentally, I have zero problems with oversight. Each town has committees and Internal Affairs offices that provide this. They also stand a good chance of having a citizens' action group that will happily pester city councilcritters and the Mayor about anything egregious. Take some time and look around - there is oversight aplenty without having to harass, persecute, and possibly endanger; you just have to know where to look.
There is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". This can present a legitimate danger if there's pictures or other personally identifiable information right there on the site.
There is a superior need for transparency in any society, but sometimes that has to be balanced against personal safety - including the safety of the cops.
As for the 1984 allegories? I suspect that you all-too easily attribute to malice what can be more easily attributed to incompetence, greed, and disparate desires that happen to run in parallel. For example, the Media manipulates to elicit drama and eyeballs, by which to convert into advertisement profit. Politicians manipulate and propagandize (in both directions!) in order to garner popularity, votes, and power (for both themselves and their ideology).
Trust me - having seen the US Government form both inside and out? I can say with certainty that as a group, it would be easier to put a colony on Mars than to organize that gaggle into any sort of overlord-type Big Brother organization...
The trick is (and std. disclaimers apply, 'cause I ain't a lawyer), that you opened your computer shares for public consumption, so anyone can "scan" those public shares for whatever they like (in reality, they're making a copy and scanning the copy - the only 'scanning' they do is to look through a list of what you have, like everyone else accessing those shares do).
Now if you password-protected the shared directory, and they got in without you giving them the password, then they'd be violating/hacking/etc. But - you can't go after 'em for doing exactly what you've set up the shared directory to do - allow anyone to download its contents.
I'm not defending the RIAA or anything but - like a vampire - the RIAA will only stay dead if we kill it the right way.
If enough folks know about this (e.g. I live in Oregon, so say they somehow decide to sue me...), then any relevant case goes 'splat' in a heartbeat, for a minimum of fuss and cost (prolly even cheaper than the "settlement" offered). I'm sure that it wouldn't take too much convincing to show the judge that the RIAA has no right to sue, based on a sole bit of evidence gathered illegally within the jurisdiction.
The only unknown would be how it affects a civil case as opposed to a criminal one. I believe that if your one bit of evidence was gathered illegally in a criminal investigation, it would pretty much obliterate any hope of prosecution, but I'm not 100% sure of civil cases.
Any lawyers in the house that can confirm/deny that?
In that light, suddenly the statement doesn't seem so self-contradictory. ;)
But, philosophical monkey-wrench aside, when I originally typed the statement, I meant that these aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, Astrology has zero scientific basis for the ability to affect an individual's future. OTOH, the things it claims to affect (emotions, love, etc etc) aren't exactly rooted deep within scientific endeavor either. I stuff it firmly into the realm of spirituality/religion, and leave it at that.
Sure, Astrology and Science do clash on the merits (especially since Pluto isn't really considered a planet by the Astronomy community anymore), but the realms in which the two subjects live are as different as (literally) black and white.
Just because she believes in astrology and forest spirits doesn't mean that she rejects science and logic. Most folks who believe in astrology believe that it works on a spiritual realm, where (to most folks, IMHO) science simply has no foothold - after all, we cannot point to a specific chain of chemical interactions and say with authority that one's soul resides in it. They use mathematics and intuition to derive what they believe to be meaning for something that most of us don't believe they can be applied to (of course, a good share of 'em also use it to con and scam, like any other endeavor).
Besides, this whole article as based on a bad assumption - that women generally regard astrology as some sort of religious/spiritual sign-post.
Long ago, I have regarded science to be a means of understanding the tools and constructs by which God runs things, much like how we (built in His image after all) do the same thing here in the secular world (e.g. right now you're staring at a prime example of Man using science as a tool to accomplish a goal - your computer. Who says God can't/doesn't do the same to accomplish His ends?).
You don't have to be an Atheist to love and pursue scientific endeavors (else Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Galileo, and a whole host of other great scientific minds would've never bothered).
Electronics? It once went from being a big mysterious thing that professionals were needed to maintain, to being a commodity item. Where once you needed a pro to trace a problem to a discrete component (IC, resistor, capacitor, etc), now any half-educated tech can trace it to a malfunctioning board, replace it, and all works well again. Consequently, electronics techs were replaced by generic maintenance techs.
If you think for one second that the world owes you a living because you know how to throw together HTML, CSS, and half a dozen other scripting languages into a website that looks pretty? Err, sorry, but no. It don't work that way.
I went from electronics to computers to systems administration, and am now flirting with programming and engineering as part of my duties.
If I sat there then (like you're doing now) and whined about the impending commoditization of a tech that I make money off of? I'd be living in a trailer park somewhere on Welfare, bitching about how life is soooooo unfair. Instead, I'm working for a Fortune 100 corp for a healthy salary and quite a decent life, with a hard-won lust for challenge and a constant eye on emerging technologies.
The secret is simple: instead of worrying so much about how your cash cow is swirling the drain, work on how to provide the best value now, and where to take you and your employees in the future.
You mean complex and 'illegal' programs like e/aMule (and its predecessor Kazaa, and its grandfather, Napster)? Joe Sixpack didn't seem to have any trouble getting hold of those and using 'em (and neither did his teenaged kids for that matter).
I also noticed that Joe didn't have much trouble getting hold of DeCSS and using it to expand his DVD collection by one hell of a margin.
Joe Bierstein in the mid/late 1990's had zero problems reading the Internet webzine Radikal from inside Germany, in spite of the entire German government going out of its way to block its access at the border. (Google for it... it's a pretty interesting tale).
I can't help but notice that Cuba isn't a haven of internet freedoms, and only a select few are able to get any outside information at all.Personally, and IMHO, as long as everyone is forced to keep to open standards, and as long as there are cheap and easy ways to access a network based on them, nobody can close anything off.
The Internet is (still) beyond the power of the individual or small group to control it. Put up a firewall? TOR springs up. Implement network throttling on certain types of traffic? That type of traffic will suddenly mimic other types. ISP locks you out due to political discomfort? You get another one who is willing to sell service at the same or lower price. Mandate locks and controls at the telco level? WiFi and NoCat springs up to build a mesh. Even Cuba, which has the tightest controls of any networked country, has one hell of a Sneakernet going on with geek sticks and covert data transfers... slow, but workable.
North Korea is about it for the ultimate Internet control, but only because they literally don't have an infrastructure installed, at least not outside of a few elite homes, palaces, and offices.
The closest anyone has come to a corporate-built 'walled garden' style of network was AOL (which had an "Internet" button to leave that network and get online). AOL's garden (in case no one noticed) is dead, and the corp is a mere shell of its former self.
To top all that off, corporations live and die by their customer base - the more locks they place on it, the less access they have to it.
Nope - I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
(and do they have probable cause laws?)
IOW, they still have to prove their case before they can start poking about, yes?
(and now more than ever, we really need some tech-savvy law types to get their asses into judicial positions, no matter which country we're talking about...)
I remember playing a round of D&D once in the cargo bay of a C-141, on the way to a TDY exercise... beat the hell out of playing the same card games over and over again, and you're right - it led to meeting a lot of great people overall.
'course, a semester or two of logic and rhetoric, coupled with one on how various scientific methods actually work would be more beneficial to the kids than all this faffing about with which biological theorems should or shouldn't be relayed as curricula.
Therein lies the rub, I think.
In spite of the OSI model (which TCP/IP doesn't map to very neatly BTW) - if one layer sneezes, they all catch a cold (with severity decreasing by distance). You screw with one layer, odds are good that you're gonna screw with its neighbors.
A good parallel of standards and what happens to them when folks try to create new paradigms? It can be found as close as your nearest fiber-based SAN installation (in its early days, anyhow)... "doesn't play well with others" is the most polite description I can find for it.
Question is this: is this a step towards (hopefully) Adobe going over their existing products and re-writing them so as to make porting easier? I know they're working with Codeweavers to get P-shop to work on a Linux platform (via WINE), but it would be cool to see some native implementations instead.
I figure once/if Adobe can get things like P-Shop and Illustrator to work on a Linux platform, other graphics companies would have that final impetus to follow. While the higher-end CG vendors usually have Linux ports or Linux-native apps (Shake, Maya, etc), the mid-range, amateur, and pro-am ones usually don't (Modo, Silo, DAZ|Studio and Poser, Vue d' Esprit, Carrara, Bryce, etc).
It'd be hella nice to see the CG/gfx companies take Linux seriously across the board, and not just as niche/custom items, or as "hey, that OS makes a great render farm node!" type of platform.
Yeah, but it'd be worth it to avoid raising the temperature of the planet a few degrees, or forcing coastal dwellers to move inland. Wouldn't it???
Depends on if you're one of the 6.3bn people that have to die off in order to make this happen.
Everyone (and stupidly, IMHO) thinks that in such a scenario, they would be the 'chosen ones' who would survive the guaranteed calamity and chaos that would come with a majority death in the human species. In reality, unless you live on a self-sustaining farm way the hell out in Nowhere, are among the ruling elites running the (hypothetical) population reduction pogrom, or happen to live in a sparsely populated (and very little-known-about) tropical island? Well, you basically have a 95% chance of being fucked-over by the odds.
Of course, we could always go for enforced birth control, ne? But who gets to decide which folks get spayed and which ones do not? Again, the odds really, really suck in any given individual's favor.
Sibling caught the first one: Food.
#2 would be living space. Cities exist today because transportation can support them. Cities are also where the vast majority of people happen to live overall.
Put it this way - if the laws of electricity were somehow revoked tomorrow morning at 9am sharp, within a year at least 1/2 of humanity would be dead, even if everyone knew up-front how to live like a caveman. Starvation, Disease (no medicines anymore), exposure (wanna live in a cave up in North Dakota? Me Neither, but all the ones in southern California are taken), dehydration (places like Las Vegas and Phoenix only exist because we can send a whole lot of water there), predation (from both animals and from really hungry humans), etc etc.
I'm not even counting the wars that would immediately generate because of new scarcities like food, salt, firewood, and the like.
By the by, the resource demands would certainly drop for things like petroleum, but they would rocket for things like plants (for food, clothing and fuel), animals (food and clothing), clean water (no modern sewage treatment anymore, and everybody taking a dump outside will eventually affect the local water table)... Also clean air would be hard to come by. Nobody wants to die of hypothermia, so everyone's gonna burn whatever wood and plants are handy come winter... this means way less trees to go around once everyone gets done stripping the forests for whatever they can lay hands on.
The Gaia worshippers can talk a good game, but the stark fact is, you'd have to reduce the population to roughly 10% of what it is now in order to have any sort of sustainable hunter-gatherer type of lifestyle. This means 90% of everyone else has to go.
(personally, I'd like to see that 90% eventually living in space colonies w/ Earth as one gigantic recreational park, but that's going to take some time...)
One would hope this CLI version of 'doze would have something akin to yum or YOU...
In *nix, I can check the health of a machine instantly with top, and use iftop and mysqltop for network and DB health checks.
'course, I'm lazy so I chuck it all into SNMP/Cacti and eyeball a whole bunch of servers remotely via a web page.
What smear? If he doesn't know what he's talking about on a given subject but insists that he does, it is perfectly fair to point that out, which this report has done. If his actions and testimony is borderline incompetent, then so be it. Name and reputation are only indicative of current credibility. If testing and research erodes that credibility, then it's his problem, and not the FSF's.
Incidentally, I believe that in the legal world the terms "competence" and "incompetent" mean something specific, and IIRC it is not name-calling to label an expert witness as either. (e.g. "competent to stand trial").
...who said they had to? I'm not so sure you know what a story actually is. This isn't some tutorial or KB article - it's a movie. As in entertainment. This means the viewer can take it in any way he or she desires. If someone doesn't want sex scenes in it, what's the harm in their cutting those out for their own consumption? Are they suddenly denying you the right to see them? Of course not, since you still have access to the unedited original.
but I am not going to be happy with companies making a profit off of someone elses IP that they have butchered just to pander to the Ned Flanders of the world.Cripes - you sound just like an *AA mouthpiece. Lookit - the whole 'clean flicks' idea is to increase the IP holders' profit by accessing a market that would otherwise not bother spending the money. The 'clean flicks' guys still pay their vig to the MPAA affiliate. Let me repeat that: The IP holders still get paid their regular rate.
If it's the fact that someone else made some dough off the deal on top of it all? Then kindly stay away from every record store, video store, eBay, used movie and CD stores, etc...
If you're so eager to keep the right to be hedonistic, "free", or whatever you apply to your person, then you had best start supporting the rights of prudes to be non-intrusively prudish within their own environments. I myself will happily support to the death the right of someone else to be as prudish as they desire, so long as they don't infringe on my right to be a heathen (you're reading this from someone who recently converted his old VHS copies of Caligula and Heavy Metal to DVD, so please don't point and shout "prude!" in my direction).
I realize my personal stance is a bit on the other extreme end, what consenting people decide to do is fine by me.I think what he was getting at is, with the source code available, odds are better that independent eyes have come across a particular convoluted problem, and has found the solution by studying the code as a last resort... giving you the solution in far less time than it would otherwise take by trying to crawl into the heads of Microsoft's documentation writers.
It's a variation (and IMHO an important one) of the "many eyes" concept for securing code.
Lucky for you then, huh? ;)
I mean, at least with scattered .conf files, if one goes corrupt, so what? You only lose (some or all of) the one daemon that relies on it, while still being able to access the running server to fix it. The sole exception is grub.conf @ boot time, which (as saving grace if the conf file should go corrupt) can be edited and modified right there at the boot prompt. OTOH, if the Registry goes splat, you're not guaranteed much of anything depending on severity, meaning downtime to restore it at best, and a server rebuild/restoration at worst.
Not that I hate it per se, but I seriously believe it to be a huge potential liability in a standard production environment, let alone an HA/critical one.
Err, on a server, why would you want to? (okay, so I'm one of those freaks who insist on running his servers at runlevel 3, but still... serious non-trolling question here: why?)