Easy, get OS X Server, make a standard disk image and either use NetBoot or have them reimaged regularly. Not that hard, there are numerous mailing lists and Howtos for it.
OK, I'll bite. What does Apple have to do to "change their security culture"?
Use POSIX-standards of security and auditing? Check. Have noted security experts examine their OS before its released? Yeah, that's TFA. What is missing?
No, the Mahdi and the Antichrist (Dajjal) are two very different things. Shiites believe that the Mahdi, or the Twelfth Imam, will come back and create the Islamic State and prepare for the arrival of Jesus. The Antichrist will grow in power and attack them, until Jesus returns from heaven and vanquishes him. Khomeini was a Twelver himself, he followed the Jaafri school of thought, where are you getting your information from?
You're just wildly off. "They" being Iranians? They don't strap bombs on their children. Also go read my original post you replied to, they believe nuclear weapons are sinful and MAD is a sin because it kills all civilians with it. And Soviets valued their lives equally or less, so many "died for the cause," so to speak.
You seem skeptical in that a country with oil wants nuclear power. There's legitimate reasons to have both; you can use one (nuclear power) and sell the other (oil). Iranians aren't foolish, they know their supply will run out in a few decades, why rush to use it all themselves when they can sell it? The IAEA agrees, none of the existing nuclear material in Iran's nuclear power program has been diverted or unaccounted for.
Firing on the protectors was terrible, a bad crime and an embarrassment to Iranians and condemned by Muslims around the world.
Yet it has no relation to checks and balances. Unless you can tell me how Parliament was powerless (they endorsed the vote although many MPs boycotted).
According to Israeli law: "A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
negation of the democratic character of the State
incitement to racism"
The Israeli government is under pressure to ban Arabs from future elections under the pretense that they don't consider Israel a "Jewish" state.
The Guardian Council vets Candidates. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution. The council did bar a lot of reform candidates from office, which was probably a political move and could have been an abuse of its power. However, the existence of strict vetting is not that different from places like Israel. It is a requirement that you state your commitment to Zionism in order to run for office (Israel has a large Arab minority of 20% and this disenfranchises them). Israel also bans certain political parties like Kach and Kahane Chai (for good reason, after their right-wing antics were killing minorities in the country and putting Israel itself at risk). Avigdor Lieberman is trying to extend this vetting even further, to create Loyalty Oaths for anyone running for office, in an attempt to mainly target the Arabs.
All Iranian Parliament candidates and all legislation from the assembly must be approved by the Guardian Council. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution. It's not that different from places like Israel, where they made it a requirement that you support Zionism in order to run for office (which drew sharp protest from Israel's 20% non-Jewish minority). Avigdor Lieberman is teaming up with those in the far right of the Knesset to create Loyalty Oaths for anyone running for office, in an attempt to mainly target the Arabs.
The checks and balances inside the Iranian government exist, I just didn't think it within the scope of my answer to include them. The Iranian Parliament is tasked with duties of the Legislative branch, and has the power to impeach the President, the President has the Executive branch and is tasked with carrying out the laws, and the Supreme Leader has the power to appoint the Judicial branch and is head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and is chosen via indirect election (unlike the US where the President appoints judges).
Iran's entire Constitution is worth a read. It was designed to be a representative democracy yet incorporate the idea that sovereignty rests with God instead of people. The checks and balances are not as powerful as they are in the US, given that Iran places much bigger emphasis on the Judiciary.
That's a pretty bad analogy. Yes, Iranians believe the antichrist will one day come and the apocalypse will happen, but people who believe in it are the type who are willing to sit and wait for it to come, and not try and hasten it like some Christian millennialists do (those are the ones who want the Dome of the Rock destroyed and the temple of Solomon rebuilt in its place, in the belief that Jesus will come back faster if they do).
As for the murdering of civilians, Ayatollah Khomeini categorically stated that nuclear weapons are inherently sinful; they kill indiscriminately and destroy women, children, crops, and nature. His fatwa states that it is Haram (forbidden) for anyone or any country to own or use them. Khamenei, his successor and leader of Iran today, concurs with the ruling. Iranians support this ruling and generally don't think the country's program is for anything but actual legal nuclear power.
I'm happy you cite primary sources, but it's a bit more complicated than that, since Iran's theocracy is rooted in democracy and elected institutions. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is chosen by the Assembly of Experts who are voted by the people; this is analogous to how the President is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. He in turn appoints the Courts and armed forces. Here's a good flowchart.
What makes it a bit harder for people to understand is that Iranians are electing a head of state who is also at the same time their religious leader (aka the marjiya), although many follow other Ayatollahs such as Sistani or Montazeri. Iran is not religiously homogeneous, there are about 25,000 Jews in Iran and they get guaranteed representatives in the Parliament as well as the Bahais and others.
Oh come on, there's plenty of people who think that Apple's laptops are a bargain.
Back in 2002, I paid over $3000 for a top of the line BTO Powerbook G4 800MHz, with 256MB RAM and 60GB hard drive. (After my student discount) Today, the top of the line MacBook Pro is $600 cheaper. Dell's top Alienware laptop is $3500.
Baloney. You're just listing false stereotypes. If Islam was the primary reason and the driving force, how come we're not seeing terrorism out of Muslim countries like Senegal or Bangladesh? Do you know how rare bombings are in the Maldives (a 100% Muslim country). If this so-called caliphate idea were in the minds of anyone today but terrorists, wouldn't you see actual armies invading? Nobody since Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War has tried to do that. Turkish Muslims were part of the last caliphate, in the Ottoman Empire, and they have no desire to return to it. Pakistan has no desire to invade India, except in retaliation or self defense. Heck, Iran hasn't started a war of aggression in nearly 300 years.
There are more choices than just "do nothing" or "invade with military." What about sanctions, diplomatic and economic pressure targeting Muagabe, arrest warrants from the ICC at the Hague?
You can read the entire Penalty notice, which lays out a good timeline of what went on. HHS sent them letters, phone calls, sign and return receipt requested letters, then subpoenaed them and after all that Cignet didn't even bother to show up in court. When the judge threatened penalties, they gave thousands of patient charts over, even though the subpoena was for only 30 records.
Looks like they had it coming, or else someone really badly has to fire their office administrator.
Gaddafi has normalized relations? Not really, he tried begging and pleading with the US and Europe for years, and Bush ignored him until end of 2003 when he was looking for some sort of foreign policy win and Gaddafi agreed to close down his practically non-existant WMD dream plans.
I understand the need for law and order, but if you block elections and free speech, and then have your Air Force drop bombs on crowds of people, most people would say that's crossing the line. It's not like most of Europe and North America where they'd just fire tear gas and use non-lethal weapons on crowds. Heck, Mubarak was using firehoses on people before he upgraded to live ammo.
It's racist to say that 'in Arab nations "democracy" means "theocracy" in a few years.' Millions of Arabs live in places with free elections, Lebanon is a democracy and Sudan recently had a nationwide referendum, etc. Egypt is on track to democratic elections by this fall, and the Muslim Brotherhood has said they don't want a theocracy. Algeria in 1991 had a democracy until the US and France backed the coup, which lead to the death of 100,000 people. If the US didn't back or help orchestrate coups such as Algeria or Palestine then there'd be a lot more democracy going around.
When it comes to the Kurds, the problem is that the US was so bloody inconsistent. When Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, the US tried to frame Iran for it, and sent Rumsfeld in to reassure Saddam that the war was going well and he had the US backing (remember that famous video of them shaking hands?). In 2002-2003 Bush and his ilk kept bringing it up as a justification to invade (as if suddenly noticing it 14 years later) , but when they finally arrest him, they decline to charge him in court with neither the gas attack nor the invasion of Kuwait.
Doing nothing, and practically decimating a country are two extremes I don't support. There's so much that the world can do to help the Libyan people short of actually going into the country with soldiers and guns. Qaddafi relies on external support from friendly allies and lots of money. Target those, and maybe he'll stop some of the madness. It's being said that he's importing mercenaries from neighboring countries and has Venezuela planned as his escape route. Those are both trivially easy to disrupt, among other things.
The Legality of invasion is actually a little different. According to the Downing Street memo, there are only 3 scenarios where it would be legal to invade: -Authorization from the UN Security Council -Self-defence -Humanitarian Intervention
While Iraq had no legitimate justification, Libya does. The Libyan representatives to the UN have declared it genocide (which if true would require the US and Europe by law to intervene), and humanitarian intervention is looking more legitimate by the day. It doesn't have to be military intervention (see my earlier post on numerous alternatives), but the status quo of doing nothing but putting out press releases asking for everyone to stop fighting is worthless.
Libya is increasingly relevant to Europe's interests, both in terms of oil flow and trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Italy, Spain, France, and Greece have reached out to Qaddafi over the past several years, because they think there's no way they can close the borders without his help. Given all the fearmongering on Iran's supposed threat to Europe, you'd think Libya would loom even larger if it goes down the tubes and goes Somali on them.
Europe can do a heck of a lot without sending soldiers in and bombing the cities. Condemnation, severing diplomatic ties, freezing Qaddafi's assets, threatening war crimes charges at the ICC Hague if this continues, sanctions, canceling the recent economic agreements (Italy alone gives billions in both reparations and an attempt to stop immigration), etc. are all ways they can exert some power over Qaddafi.
There are many more options than either bombing the country or doing nothing at all. CAIR endorsed the idea of a No-fly zone for the entire country, which would prevent some of the military massacring the citizens. It's a good start. Also maybe a weapons embargo, since nobody is stopping Libya from ordering more over the last 2 weeks. What about freezing Qadaffi's assets, as some in Europe are doing? Maybe his friends, like Chavez in Venezuela can pressure him into stepping down. There are ways of aiding Libya that would both get broad support and not be over-meddling.
Well given that the US was so eager to sanction Iran and press for a full embargo and basically threaten war as "an option on the table," you would think that a country killing thousands of it citizens in mere days would get a similar or greater response. And there's no holy war involved here, never was.
Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people, and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.
It's ridiculous, Libya's own ambassadors are resigning to protest him, and the Libyan UN delegation broke from Qadafi and is publicly demanding from New York that the UN step in and do something. Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?
Ah, a smug linux user who feels content on bashing a more popular OS. You're wrong, things like Airdrop are a bit more complicated than you make it out to be; the purpose of it is to allow ad-hoc network setup using Zeroconf/Rendezvous/Bonjour networking, followed by autodiscovery and without need to setup filesharing or public folders. You can do it on *nix, but it would need a lot of steps to set up.
If you are the kind of person who needs everything GPLed, or needs to be able to tweak every single piece of running code on your machine, then the Mac was never for you. Just like if you really want to custom-service your own car and use off the shelf components, a BMW isn't really for you either.
For most other people, the Mac is fine. You do realize the vast, vast majority of users have no need for a compiler right? It's designed to be a machine simple enough for people's grandparents and yet a powerful enough workstation for artists and coders.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy, get OS X Server, make a standard disk image and either use NetBoot or have them reimaged regularly. Not that hard, there are numerous mailing lists and Howtos for it.
OK, I'll bite. What does Apple have to do to "change their security culture"?
Use POSIX-standards of security and auditing? Check.
Have noted security experts examine their OS before its released? Yeah, that's TFA.
What is missing?
No, the Mahdi and the Antichrist (Dajjal) are two very different things. Shiites believe that the Mahdi, or the Twelfth Imam, will come back and create the Islamic State and prepare for the arrival of Jesus. The Antichrist will grow in power and attack them, until Jesus returns from heaven and vanquishes him. Khomeini was a Twelver himself, he followed the Jaafri school of thought, where are you getting your information from?
You're just wildly off. "They" being Iranians? They don't strap bombs on their children. Also go read my original post you replied to, they believe nuclear weapons are sinful and MAD is a sin because it kills all civilians with it. And Soviets valued their lives equally or less, so many "died for the cause," so to speak.
You seem skeptical in that a country with oil wants nuclear power. There's legitimate reasons to have both; you can use one (nuclear power) and sell the other (oil). Iranians aren't foolish, they know their supply will run out in a few decades, why rush to use it all themselves when they can sell it? The IAEA agrees, none of the existing nuclear material in Iran's nuclear power program has been diverted or unaccounted for.
Firing on the protectors was terrible, a bad crime and an embarrassment to Iranians and condemned by Muslims around the world.
Yet it has no relation to checks and balances. Unless you can tell me how Parliament was powerless (they endorsed the vote although many MPs boycotted).
The US and UN have announced sanctions on the leadership, not touching the country's businesses or citizens.
According to Israeli law: "A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
The Israeli government is under pressure to ban Arabs from future elections under the pretense that they don't consider Israel a "Jewish" state.
The Guardian Council vets Candidates. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution. The council did bar a lot of reform candidates from office, which was probably a political move and could have been an abuse of its power. However, the existence of strict vetting is not that different from places like Israel. It is a requirement that you state your commitment to Zionism in order to run for office (Israel has a large Arab minority of 20% and this disenfranchises them). Israel also bans certain political parties like Kach and Kahane Chai (for good reason, after their right-wing antics were killing minorities in the country and putting Israel itself at risk). Avigdor Lieberman is trying to extend this vetting even further, to create Loyalty Oaths for anyone running for office, in an attempt to mainly target the Arabs.
All Iranian Parliament candidates and all legislation from the assembly must be approved by the Guardian Council. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution. It's not that different from places like Israel, where they made it a requirement that you support Zionism in order to run for office (which drew sharp protest from Israel's 20% non-Jewish minority). Avigdor Lieberman is teaming up with those in the far right of the Knesset to create Loyalty Oaths for anyone running for office, in an attempt to mainly target the Arabs.
The checks and balances inside the Iranian government exist, I just didn't think it within the scope of my answer to include them. The Iranian Parliament is tasked with duties of the Legislative branch, and has the power to impeach the President, the President has the Executive branch and is tasked with carrying out the laws, and the Supreme Leader has the power to appoint the Judicial branch and is head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and is chosen via indirect election (unlike the US where the President appoints judges).
Iran's entire Constitution is worth a read. It was designed to be a representative democracy yet incorporate the idea that sovereignty rests with God instead of people. The checks and balances are not as powerful as they are in the US, given that Iran places much bigger emphasis on the Judiciary.
That's a pretty bad analogy. Yes, Iranians believe the antichrist will one day come and the apocalypse will happen, but people who believe in it are the type who are willing to sit and wait for it to come, and not try and hasten it like some Christian millennialists do (those are the ones who want the Dome of the Rock destroyed and the temple of Solomon rebuilt in its place, in the belief that Jesus will come back faster if they do).
As for the murdering of civilians, Ayatollah Khomeini categorically stated that nuclear weapons are inherently sinful; they kill indiscriminately and destroy women, children, crops, and nature. His fatwa states that it is Haram (forbidden) for anyone or any country to own or use them. Khamenei, his successor and leader of Iran today, concurs with the ruling. Iranians support this ruling and generally don't think the country's program is for anything but actual legal nuclear power.
I'm happy you cite primary sources, but it's a bit more complicated than that, since Iran's theocracy is rooted in democracy and elected institutions.
Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is chosen by the Assembly of Experts who are voted by the people; this is analogous to how the President is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. He in turn appoints the Courts and armed forces.
Here's a good flowchart.
What makes it a bit harder for people to understand is that Iranians are electing a head of state who is also at the same time their religious leader (aka the marjiya), although many follow other Ayatollahs such as Sistani or Montazeri. Iran is not religiously homogeneous, there are about 25,000 Jews in Iran and they get guaranteed representatives in the Parliament as well as the Bahais and others.
Oh come on, there's plenty of people who think that Apple's laptops are a bargain.
Back in 2002, I paid over $3000 for a top of the line BTO Powerbook G4 800MHz, with 256MB RAM and 60GB hard drive. (After my student discount) Today, the top of the line MacBook Pro is $600 cheaper. Dell's top Alienware laptop is $3500.
Baloney. You're just listing false stereotypes. If Islam was the primary reason and the driving force, how come we're not seeing terrorism out of Muslim countries like Senegal or Bangladesh? Do you know how rare bombings are in the Maldives (a 100% Muslim country). If this so-called caliphate idea were in the minds of anyone today but terrorists, wouldn't you see actual armies invading? Nobody since Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War has tried to do that. Turkish Muslims were part of the last caliphate, in the Ottoman Empire, and they have no desire to return to it. Pakistan has no desire to invade India, except in retaliation or self defense. Heck, Iran hasn't started a war of aggression in nearly 300 years.
There are more choices than just "do nothing" or "invade with military." What about sanctions, diplomatic and economic pressure targeting Muagabe, arrest warrants from the ICC at the Hague?
You can read the entire Penalty notice, which lays out a good timeline of what went on. HHS sent them letters, phone calls, sign and return receipt requested letters, then subpoenaed them and after all that Cignet didn't even bother to show up in court. When the judge threatened penalties, they gave thousands of patient charts over, even though the subpoena was for only 30 records.
Looks like they had it coming, or else someone really badly has to fire their office administrator.
Lion will have TRIM support
Gaddafi has normalized relations? Not really, he tried begging and pleading with the US and Europe for years, and Bush ignored him until end of 2003 when he was looking for some sort of foreign policy win and Gaddafi agreed to close down his practically non-existant WMD dream plans.
I understand the need for law and order, but if you block elections and free speech, and then have your Air Force drop bombs on crowds of people, most people would say that's crossing the line. It's not like most of Europe and North America where they'd just fire tear gas and use non-lethal weapons on crowds. Heck, Mubarak was using firehoses on people before he upgraded to live ammo.
It's racist to say that 'in Arab nations "democracy" means "theocracy" in a few years.' Millions of Arabs live in places with free elections, Lebanon is a democracy and Sudan recently had a nationwide referendum, etc. Egypt is on track to democratic elections by this fall, and the Muslim Brotherhood has said they don't want a theocracy. Algeria in 1991 had a democracy until the US and France backed the coup, which lead to the death of 100,000 people. If the US didn't back or help orchestrate coups such as Algeria or Palestine then there'd be a lot more democracy going around.
Does this mean full headcrab support?
When it comes to the Kurds, the problem is that the US was so bloody inconsistent. When Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, the US tried to frame Iran for it, and sent Rumsfeld in to reassure Saddam that the war was going well and he had the US backing (remember that famous video of them shaking hands?). In 2002-2003 Bush and his ilk kept bringing it up as a justification to invade (as if suddenly noticing it 14 years later) , but when they finally arrest him, they decline to charge him in court with neither the gas attack nor the invasion of Kuwait.
Doing nothing, and practically decimating a country are two extremes I don't support. There's so much that the world can do to help the Libyan people short of actually going into the country with soldiers and guns. Qaddafi relies on external support from friendly allies and lots of money. Target those, and maybe he'll stop some of the madness. It's being said that he's importing mercenaries from neighboring countries and has Venezuela planned as his escape route. Those are both trivially easy to disrupt, among other things.
The Legality of invasion is actually a little different. According to the Downing Street memo, there are only 3 scenarios where it would be legal to invade:
-Authorization from the UN Security Council
-Self-defence
-Humanitarian Intervention
While Iraq had no legitimate justification, Libya does. The Libyan representatives to the UN have declared it genocide (which if true would require the US and Europe by law to intervene), and humanitarian intervention is looking more legitimate by the day.
It doesn't have to be military intervention (see my earlier post on numerous alternatives), but the status quo of doing nothing but putting out press releases asking for everyone to stop fighting is worthless.
Libya is increasingly relevant to Europe's interests, both in terms of oil flow and trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Italy, Spain, France, and Greece have reached out to Qaddafi over the past several years, because they think there's no way they can close the borders without his help. Given all the fearmongering on Iran's supposed threat to Europe, you'd think Libya would loom even larger if it goes down the tubes and goes Somali on them.
Europe can do a heck of a lot without sending soldiers in and bombing the cities. Condemnation, severing diplomatic ties, freezing Qaddafi's assets, threatening war crimes charges at the ICC Hague if this continues, sanctions, canceling the recent economic agreements (Italy alone gives billions in both reparations and an attempt to stop immigration), etc. are all ways they can exert some power over Qaddafi.
There are many more options than either bombing the country or doing nothing at all. CAIR endorsed the idea of a No-fly zone for the entire country, which would prevent some of the military massacring the citizens. It's a good start. Also maybe a weapons embargo, since nobody is stopping Libya from ordering more over the last 2 weeks. What about freezing Qadaffi's assets, as some in Europe are doing? Maybe his friends, like Chavez in Venezuela can pressure him into stepping down. There are ways of aiding Libya that would both get broad support and not be over-meddling.
Well given that the US was so eager to sanction Iran and press for a full embargo and basically threaten war as "an option on the table," you would think that a country killing thousands of it citizens in mere days would get a similar or greater response. And there's no holy war involved here, never was.
Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people, and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.
It's ridiculous, Libya's own ambassadors are resigning to protest him, and the Libyan UN delegation broke from Qadafi and is publicly demanding from New York that the UN step in and do something. Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?
Ah, a smug linux user who feels content on bashing a more popular OS. You're wrong, things like Airdrop are a bit more complicated than you make it out to be; the purpose of it is to allow ad-hoc network setup using Zeroconf/Rendezvous/Bonjour networking, followed by autodiscovery and without need to setup filesharing or public folders. You can do it on *nix, but it would need a lot of steps to set up.
If you are the kind of person who needs everything GPLed, or needs to be able to tweak every single piece of running code on your machine, then the Mac was never for you. Just like if you really want to custom-service your own car and use off the shelf components, a BMW isn't really for you either.
For most other people, the Mac is fine. You do realize the vast, vast majority of users have no need for a compiler right? It's designed to be a machine simple enough for people's grandparents and yet a powerful enough workstation for artists and coders.
Don't be hating.