1. Brown shirted thugs are not patrolling the streets assaulting those that disagree with the government. Before the 'war' we had with Iraq, I saw plenty of people protesting against the war. Nobody was attacking them government or otherwise.
Why is "war" in quotes? Bush declared war on Iraq on March 17th.
Anyway, no brown shirted thugs. Ours wear blue. You apparently haven't heard about the Okaland police firing wooden slugs into crowds of peaceful protestors. Surely you've heard of the massive amounts of arrests of protesters, or police blockades preventing protestors from moving or even leaving. And that's just anti-Iraq War protests.
Back to Germany... The Gestapo, formed right after (you guessed it) the Reichstag fire, didn't become the common terror in the minds of the German people that you are imagining until much later.
You're making the grand mistake of thinking you can simply compare the current perspective on Nazi Germany after half a century of historical analysis to what is going on right now. You have to think from the perspective of a German citizen and how the events of the time would have looked to them. IE you don't know that Hitler is planning to exterminate Jews. You've never heard of Auschwitz, and "holocaust" still refers to a burnt offering. All you know is what we know today about todays events -- what information we receive through the news. Granted Germany's political and thus news reporting spectrum was much more varied than in the U.S. today. They didn't hear about dissidents' doors being kicked in the middle of the night -- and if they did, it was a "suspected Communist" (= Terrorist, for correct modern subtext of being a dirty criminal who deserves to be hauled off) not "someone who disagrees with us". At the time Germans didn't think Hitler (the political leader) was Hitler (the synonym for Evil Incarnate that his name is today).
Which is funny. Some historians will wonder -- how could the German people have been duped so badly? How could they believe that the Communists would do something as obviously suicidal as burn down the Reichstag? How could they believe that Poland was a dire and immediate threat to Germany? How could they not have seen Hitler's agenda? To which I say: "Indeed, how?"
Probably didn't know their history well enough.
2. There is going to be an election in 2004. I dont want to discuss the events surrounding the election in 2000, it was very very close, lets just leave it at that.
I'll say that while I do not believe there was any conspiracy, I do believe there was opportunism, and it turned the election. I'll leave it at that.
I dont remember Hitler holding any elections.
*sigh* Hitler held a General Election in March of 1933, just after the Reichstag fire and the passing of the Enablement Act.
This is really getting irritating. I try to not be arrogant or condescending, but you end up just making a mockery of yourself. Every time you say "I don't remember" it really is you not remembering. Or just not knowing. Either you're lying about those history courses, or it just simply didn't stick. You know, I took a course in organic chemistry once. Don't remember a lick of it, which is why I refrain from taking any strong stance in a discussion on the subject. Because that would make me look like a fool and a pompous ass. Which I would be.
3. One of Hitler's first orders of business was to nationalize the economy. Bush's tax cuts are in effect the opposite of that.
Bush is right, Hitler left. Both are authoritarian, and that's the part that matters. Does it really matter so much what social policies your dictator implements while in power?
4. Death camps
Were the death camps public knowledge at the time? Have you been to Guantanamo Bay?
And I now direct you to my first post, which was basically a rant about how people could be stupid enough to fail to learn the
Your arrogant condescending post really showed me my ignorant ways.
I was arrogant and condescending. You were arrogant, condescending, and also had no idea what you were talking about. "yeah I forgot all about the part where poland flew a few planes into downtown berlin" you said, arrogantly, condescendingly, and ignorantly.
How could I have missed it? Bush really is just like Hitler, maybe worse!
Glorious straw man! If you have been paying attention, my whole point was that Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, but that shouldn't stop you from being able to see the god-damn historical pattern.
Then again, knowing what pattern you're looking for helps, eh?
Despite the fact that you are making some assumptions that clearly arent true... I am not a product of the US public school system. I have taken plenty of college history courses, and still read historical stuff for enjoyment... oh and Im hardly a Republican myself....
Look, you're the one that assumed I'm incapable of thinking bad thoughts about a Democrat, based solely on me not liking Bush. If that doesn't indicate partisanship, what does? So I was wrong.
And I assumed you were a product of the U.S. school system because that would give an excuse for your ignorance. I'm really curious how you managed to take "plenty of college history" but not know anything the God-damned burning of the Reichstag! My definition of "plently" is "more than enough", but that apparently isn't the same definition you're using.
Okay, so now that I know you're not a Republican and have an extensive non-public-school history education, let me ask you: What on God's Green Earth is your excuse for not knowing about the Reichstag?!
and still read historical stuff for enjoyment...
To quote Brian of Family Guy: "Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't... nothing?"
I dont know how I missed that Bush is just like Hitler. Guess I am just ignorant.
Yes, you are. You've already demonstrated it, so stop saying it sarcastically like it isn't true. You are ignorant on this subject.
Still, if someone as educated and learned as yourself could enlighten me on just one point:
I'm not claiming to be that educated and learned. This is basic history. Even the most cursory examination of the Nazi rise to power will feature the burning of the Reichstag as a turning point in German history.
I'm also not claiming that it's my task to enlighten you. Nor it is my responsibility to. You ignorance has been pointed out to you, and you either care and will fix it or you won't.
Please explain to me how anything Bush is doing is any worse than anything FDR did. I eagerly await your response.
Still stuck on that, eh? My original reply addressed some of these issues, but again I really didn't see the point in discussing this with someone who thinks not knowing is a strong argumentative position.
But in short: If I was God, FDR would have earned his own special place in Hell for the internment camps. FDR gets a special Hell-fork in the ass for his own personal Reichstag, Pearl Harbor, and for knowing more about it before hand than was let on at the time (there are interesting historical comparisons all over, aren't there?). The lesson of Social Security we may see replayed literally when they get us to swallow government-controlled tracking devices by coating them in chocolate.
As far as I'm aware, habeus corpus and other Constitutional rights weren't removed as a matter of law (they were as a matter of practice, if you happened to be Japanese). I'm not aware of any laws that granted him additional powers that weren't temporary -- ie until the end of the War, which unlike some other Wars had the distinction of having an enemy who could surrender, and thus end the War.
If you have anything you'd like to add, feel free. I am sincere
I'm not saying that these problems should be hidden, but when the patch itself provides the information needed to create an exploit, it shouldn't be revealed until the distros have been given a chance to prepare fixes. If there is already a confirmed exploit, all bets are off.
Ah, you're making more sense now.
And I agree, by and large. In the case where it is the maintainers of the app who discover the vulnerability or they are otherwise fairly confident that the vulnerability is not widely known, then it is the responsible thing to do to inform the distros first.
In the case of OpenSSH, there was a known exploit in the wild.
In a perfect world, I completely agree with you. Given the limitations of the human beings sitting between my servers and OpenSSH's CVS, I'd rather see some allowances made. Taken to absurd levels, would you rather see security bugs posted to slashdot before the upstream authors are even informed about them? Obviously there has to be a certain amount of secrecy, the question is where do you draw the line.
If you care about the OpenSSH or Sendmail vulnerability, then the only human between your servers and the OpenSSH CVS should be you. If you are using apt-get as anything but a convenience feature then you shouldn't be a sysadmin (which is what servers implies to me, as opposed to a guy like me who is in charge of his one server at home). IMO, of course.
Though again I agree that it is a matter of where to draw the line. I don't believe that only releasing information early if there is a known exploit is the right place. If the bug itself is known, even without working exploit code, then getting the patch out as quickly as possible should become first prority, the convenience of distros second. Especially in the case of something like a buffer overrun, where the method of exploiting the bug is well known and thus a hundred exploits could be written and only disseminated to victims.
But anyway, yeah, if the bug hadn't already been out in the wild, I'd say that OpenSSH did the wrong thing. I don't know about the Sendmail bug, but I think anyone running that had really better be able to handle patching it themselves.:)
If the Debian developers had proper notice they could have worked out these issues without wasting everyone's time and bandwidth fixing the same problem twice. Give the system the time it needs to fix things properly... That's all I'm saying.
I'm not following you. I think you're saying that the OpenSSH folks should have told Debian and the other distros about the patch, then waited until they were all ready, then released the patch to the general public.
I can't tell if you think that the OpenSSH people were sitting on this patch for a while and then told us and the distros simultaneously, or if you think that they should have sat on the patch but only after telling the distros about it. There has to be some way to generate the time between the creation of the patch and when you'd like for them to officially release the patch.
Either way it comes up to "announce to distros first, then everyone else", which I have problems with. Everyone needed the patch, they needed it soon, and they needed it whether or not they happened to be using a particular distro!
So I'm still not seeing how OpenSSH did anything wrong. It seems to me that if testing is so important then the Debian folks should have spent longer testing it then. Why could not Debian decide to add that extra time you wanted themselves?
If you were wondering why Linux worms/viruses/whatever never seem to accomplish much of anything, the above is why. You almost feel sorry for the bugs.
I never feel sorry for bugs. The only good thing about bugs is the merciless crushing of them. Unless they amuse me. Like the one that doesn't crash the program, but turns everything psychedelic colors. That one might get to stay, and become an easter egg or something.
I was faintly hoping that this would result in the bugs evolving to become more amusing and less harmful over time. Eventually all my programs would be crash-free and full of cool and neat features, without having to change or improve my coding style at all! Evolutionary time scales being what they are, results are still out on whether this holds true in practice.
For the sake of being somewhat on topic*, obviously I wouldn't do this if I was an ssh developer.:)
*There's a bug, and a patch to go with. Not much else to say. Being a Debian user I've already done the apt thing and patched.
I had a nice long post replying point-by-point, explaining how Hitler used fear of others to win power and pointing out that while Stalin-like in rule, Hitler was nothing like Stalin in coming or your other examples in coming to power. Unlike Russia when Stalin rose to power, Germany was a Democracy and so on.
But I stopped, because I read two things:
Im guessing your real problem is that it is a Republican in office.
At which point I guessed that your real problem is that you're more interested in partisan politics than in history and its lessons. A guess that was born out by:
yeah I forgot all about the part where poland flew a few planes into downtown berlin and killed thousands of people and the part where france was sending anthrax to german politians in the mail.
Yeah, maybe you did forget. Mabye. Though since I mentioned it in my last post, and "the Reichstag had just recently been burned down by 'communists'" doesn't seem to have refreshed your memory any, then maybe the problem is that you're ignorant.
So, here I stopped. There's no point in refuting the points of someone who wasn't even aware of the Reichstag attack. It'd be like discussing current events without knowing about September 11th. Very much like it. Would you debate U.S. policy with someone who wasn't aware of the WTC attacks?
I don't blame you, since you're probably a product of the American public school system (like myself) and thus woefully ignorant of history in general. I implore you to educate yourself about this critical point in history. Of all the President's qualities you could choose to emulate, please don't pick his dislike of reading.
Here's a -very- quick synopsis though, just to get you started: - Germany is a Democracy with several parties, of which the Nazis are the strongest, nearing a majority of support. - Arson committed on the Reichstag (German Congress building). Communists are fingered as the culprits. - Ostensibly to respond to the immediate, dire threat of Communist terrorists, new legistlation granting vast new executive powers is steamrolled through with virtually no debate allowed. - The dire, immediate threat of Communism becomes the dire, immediate threat of Poland. - Based on afforementioned dire, immediate threat Germany invades Poland. From this point, you should have at least a vague idea of what happened.
You should also have at least a vague idea of why some people are noticing parallels. You surely aren't convinced, but hopefully you are at least lead to investigate further.
It really disgusts me all these people drawing parallels to Nazi germany. The situations are completely different. Oh and if Bush can be equated to Hitler, then what does that make FDR? oops, FDR was a Democrat, better not badmouth him.
You could assume I wouldn't badmouth him because of his party affiliation, but you'd be wrong. It really disgusts me when the ignorant attribute the opinions of others to their own foibles. As a result I probably strayed a little bit too far toward the wrong end of the continuum between "pointing out your ignorance" and "mocking your ignorance". So, sorry about that, but only a little.
I'm sure that a dose of 1 gram/ gram would suffice to kill them. That I don't know how much less shouldn't be cause to claim that it's safe.
So not knowing where the lethal dose is between "less than 100% of the mass of the animal" and "more than what the animal could feasibly consume" isn't enough to claim it is safe?!
What, are you worried a dump truck full of THC tablets are going to fall into your mouth?:)
Really? Has such a thing happened to you? Has such a thing happened to anyone you know? again, grow up and get some perspective. You think this is like living in nazi germany? Go live in north korea (yes, I have friends from there). I think that would give you some idea of what a fascist dictatorship is, and maybe you would realize your country is not so bad after all.
You think that's bad? Try living on Pluto (yes, I have friends from there). You just even try complaining about the cruel fascist dictatorship you used to live in when it's 35 degrees Kelvin!
Which is just a way of pointing out the silliness of the "Well, it's worse over there!" argument. Yes, it sucks more some place or time elsewhere. If I only had the option of living in North Korea or fascist Italy, I'd probably pick Italy. But that doesn't mean I think Musollini was cool, or not a fascist dictator, does it?
And here's what a lot of people forget when the whole "Gee, there are alarming similarities between the Bush administration and the Hitler administration" thing comes up and they go "Oh, but Hitler killed six million Jews!": Hitler did that, but he didn't do that until after he had solidified his power as Die Furer.
Look at Nazism at the equivalent point in history. Hitler is President, and the Reichstag had just recently been burned down by "communists", which was then used as justification to expand government power, the creation of the Gestapo, and the starting of wars. Fearing for their safety, the people followed Hitler because he promised to make them safe.
The parallels are there and they are obvious and they are alarming. When Hitler was at this point, he was only warming up, and tell me this does it sound to you like Bush and Ashcroft are slowing down their attempts to gather more power?
Here's what really bothers me. World War II should be the perfect example of how those in power can use propaganda and fear to control their populace and turn what was a Democracy into a Dictatorship and why it's bad to let that happen. It was the ultimate fucking lesson of the school of hard knocks, with the low low tuition price of forty million lives.
But some people, and coincidentally in my experience always Americans, haven't learned the lesson at all, and that's sad.
"But Hitler killed six million Jews! How many Jews has Bush killed?!" How many Jews did Hitler kill while President? The Jew-killing thing didn't happen until later. It (Nazism, that is) started out seeming fairly reasonable. They won an election, and by a larger margin than Bush! But things started to creep in the direction of a police state, but not enough to alarm people who though it was all for their own safety from the evil Arabs^W Communists. Good, the Gestapo will keep us safe, they said. Eventually, things got worse. Then they got bad. Then six million Jews died (along with a good 30+ million other people).
It's as if the lesson was too huge for people. Forty million people died, six million civilians killed due to their race. It's nearly unthinkable, and unthikable that it could happen again. So people dismiss it! "Oh, Bush would never shovel Jews into gas chambers!" So what?! Do you want to give him the chance and find out? Do you think the only bad thing about Nazi Germany was gas chambers? Why does the end result have to be equally horrific before you'll see that it's a problem?
I don't get it. When you watch the safety video in shop class and it shows a huge industrial band saw hacking off a careless worker's hand, do you throw caution to the wind because it's obvious the little saw in the shop is unlikely to do any worse than sever a finger? Your response: No, that would be really, really stupid and show a profound inability to generalize problems and analyze risk.
What if it wasn't a video, but your friend in real life five minutes ago. You'd have to be a real idiot then not to use caution, wouldn't y
How about the fact that his first post about how he doesn't have a girlfriend and the mysterious "girl" the jocks keep telling him about? That sounds like lonely hetero geek to me, not happy homo geek.
I could be wrong though. Either way, I feel the information I provided will be useful.:)
That's why you get a CD mp3 player that supports "directories", a convenient method that allows a hierarchical organization of files. You know, like Artist/Album/track#-Name.mp3.
This works great on my Rio Volt, which lets you easily move up and down through the directories, and even has neat things like "directory shuffle" or "Album shuffle" where it randomly selects a directory and plays the songs in order. The track#-name.mp3 keeps the name short so it mostly shows up on the small LCD display when scanning tracks quickly, and fixes problems I had with really long filenames.
Anyway, organizing a CD shouldn't be any harder than organizing a lot of mp3s on your computer's hard disk.
fear is deeper: less controllable, less rationalizable, and mostly, extremely personal.
I don't believe this. Actually, I think the opposite. Fear is more controllable, and more rational. A person who is afraid if shown why they should not be afraid may be convinced. Show a person who is in love why they should not be in love, and you will get a range of reactions between denial and outright aggression against you.
Fear is fundamentally more rational because fear is nothing but the emotional expression of the survival instinct. When survival is assured, then fear is minimal. When survival is in question, then fear increases. People are afraid of things because they believe those things may damage their ability to survive. It's cause and effect, and if you can prove to someone that the cause they are concerned about won't cause the effect they fear (death), then that fear can be assuaged.
Even fear of the unknown follows this (if you don't know what it is, how do you determine whether it will kill you?) and is the easiest for others to use because maintaining the fear merely requires maintaining the ignorance of the fearful. But educate the ignorant fearful and they might not be afraid anymore.
Fear can be irrational, of course, just as everything humans do can be. But we have a word for irrational fear: Phobia.
Irrational love, however, is redundant. Love is also extremely personal because each person's reasons for loving are different. Most people have a difficult time explaining why they are in love, beyond poetic metaphor.
expressions of love and hate are the currency of social discouse, but cognition of fear cannot be shared, cannot be amortized, cannot be assuaged by anyone except the one feeling the fear. thus, fear is more valuable because it cannot be parlayed once planted.
Fear is the currency of social discourse. When do love and hate even come up? Fear is what drives the news, the issues, and the debates. The economy, unemployment, terrorism, Saddam Hussein's WMDs, Texas redistricting. It's all fear.
Cognition of fear can absolutely be shared, since fear almost always has a "cause" that leads to an undesired "effect" which is what the person fears. These are the real-world foundations of fear that we can discuss and rationalize about. Since everyone has a common basis for our fears (survival instinct) it is a uniquely shareable emotion.
these things everyone knows, some people use, and some some people abuse.
The reason fear is abused is because it is the easiest thing to share, and thus the easiest thing to use on the masses. Causing fear is as easy as convincing someone that something will likely kill/harm them. It has nothing to do with the difficulty in removing fear. In fact, the abusers know how fragile fear can be in the face of knowledge. This is why we hear only vague threats of danger and hints of proof, and why the "Terror Alert" does nothing but provide an abstract "fear level" rather than any specific, useful information.
store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen.
That must be one hell of a spindle! Got a patent on it?;)
But yes, the physical CDs are nothing but a "backup" medium that rarely see the light of day around my place as well.
What's funny is that I had a CD stolen, and I recovered the music off gnapster. This kinda amuses me, since I was actually robbed, as I no longer had the physical CD I bought. But using the service that the RIAA claims is stealing, I was able to recover my music and nobody else lost anything at all.
Whatever. Since I discovered emusic.com, I don't "boycott" the RIAA so much as simply not care about them at all. An independent record store would accomplish more or less the same thing: Better music, less evil.
Crap. Just like in every other aspect of life, some people and organisations did the work and some didn't.
Yes. The ones that did the work were the ones that had a reason to care. The ones that didn't were the ones that didn't. Amazing, huh? Or do you think the CTOs and engineers at these companies just said "Oh, USA Today says the world will end, we have to fix it!" No, the looked at their code, and what it was used for, and decided if they needed to do anything.
"Some people and organisations" that did the work would be banks and power plants and missle silos. You know, the ones that USA Today told you would cause Armageddon but didn't because those people understood the problem and fixed it.
"Some didn't" and those some were the ones that looked at their code and what it did and decided they didn't care. Most didn't care. The ones that did fixed it.
If there was a real problem we would have seen the companies that were prepared sail through without a hitch and the others fail.
I'm sure there were problems. But you probably didn't hear about Bob's Discount Fish Outlet's warehouse database automatically ordering an extra crate of herring because it thougt it had been 100 years since it had done so. Everything you would have heard about fell into either "don't care" or "fixed it".
Nothing happened. It was pure hype.
Something did happen. What happened is a lot of programmers around the world looked at the problem realisticaly, and fixed it where necessary. A lot of work went into making sure that on New Year's Day you could watch the rest of the world celebrate on CNN as Midnight treked around the world while checking your online bank teller to see your $12.36 sitting there safe and sound. That wasn't hype. That was engineers working hard to fix a problem. And while I had nothing personally to do with the situation, I dislike it when members of my profession kick ass at solving a real problem well enough that it doesn't affect you at all, and you call it "hype".
Oh well. It's not as exciting as Armageddon, and there's no Steve Buscemi, but danger averted is still pretty cool in my book.
P.S. No, there almost certainly wasn't going to be Armageddon in any serious way. No missles were going to launch just because the date changed. If they ever were in danger, you can bet those bastards checked it out well in advance. The media did blow it out of proportion, and quoted every engineer who said "there could be a problem; we have to look into it" as proof that we'd all die in nuclear blasts at 12:07am. So actually I blame them for your opinion. But you're still wrong!:)
I can well imagine that although you will be able to diasble Palladium, programs like Windows Media Player, Real Player, may be Quicktime, etc. will refuse to install and run...:)
My prediction: The first application to require Palladium (as opposed to just supporting it, like WMP and Real will at first) will be Windows Update. For non-corporate users, anyway. It'll be an easy sale, since the argument for a secure way to update your OS is strong and valid. Of course, to use Automatic Update you'll have to leave Palladium on all the time. Eventually there'll be a patch that'll turn it on and leave it on whether you like it or not, possibly as part of a fix to a critical security vulnerability. My guess is also that if Palladium has flown that long, few people will care.
I'll probably butcher it, but you should get the gist:
Long ago, Horse was troubled by Wolf, in the sense that Wolf wanted to eat him. Horse knew he could not best Wolf, so he came to Man and said: "Wolf is our common enemy. Let us join forces to defeat him." Man said: "Very well. Let me put this saddle and bridle on you, so I may ride while we hunt Wolf." Horse agreed, and using his speed and Man's spear, they hunted down and killed Wolf. Horse then said: "Wolf is defeated! Now that the danger has past, you can remove the saddle and bridle." Man laughed and said "But I like it up here! Now giddyap!"
The lessons of this story are twofold: Horses are gullible idiots, and Man can't be trusted to relinquish power once given it.
So the question is, are you Horse or Man?
Let me be more direct: You do realize that once you have a Palladium-based system, the ability to turn it on and off is a feature which can be disabled, right? Oh, but I'm sure they won't, right? *Whinny!*
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny shit. :)
Your satiric abilities are subtle and profound. :)
No mod points, so no +1 Funny for you.
1. Brown shirted thugs are not patrolling the streets assaulting those that disagree with the government. Before the 'war' we had with Iraq, I saw plenty of people protesting against the war. Nobody was attacking them government or otherwise.
Why is "war" in quotes? Bush declared war on Iraq on March 17th.
Anyway, no brown shirted thugs. Ours wear blue. You apparently haven't heard about the Okaland police firing wooden slugs into crowds of peaceful protestors. Surely you've heard of the massive amounts of arrests of protesters, or police blockades preventing protestors from moving or even leaving. And that's just anti-Iraq War protests.
Back to Germany... The Gestapo, formed right after (you guessed it) the Reichstag fire, didn't become the common terror in the minds of the German people that you are imagining until much later.
You're making the grand mistake of thinking you can simply compare the current perspective on Nazi Germany after half a century of historical analysis to what is going on right now. You have to think from the perspective of a German citizen and how the events of the time would have looked to them. IE you don't know that Hitler is planning to exterminate Jews. You've never heard of Auschwitz, and "holocaust" still refers to a burnt offering. All you know is what we know today about todays events -- what information we receive through the news. Granted Germany's political and thus news reporting spectrum was much more varied than in the U.S. today. They didn't hear about dissidents' doors being kicked in the middle of the night -- and if they did, it was a "suspected Communist" (= Terrorist, for correct modern subtext of being a dirty criminal who deserves to be hauled off) not "someone who disagrees with us". At the time Germans didn't think Hitler (the political leader) was Hitler (the synonym for Evil Incarnate that his name is today).
Which is funny. Some historians will wonder -- how could the German people have been duped so badly? How could they believe that the Communists would do something as obviously suicidal as burn down the Reichstag? How could they believe that Poland was a dire and immediate threat to Germany? How could they not have seen Hitler's agenda? To which I say: "Indeed, how?"
Probably didn't know their history well enough.
2. There is going to be an election in 2004. I dont want to discuss the events surrounding the election in 2000, it was very very close, lets just leave it at that.
I'll say that while I do not believe there was any conspiracy, I do believe there was opportunism, and it turned the election. I'll leave it at that.
I dont remember Hitler holding any elections.
*sigh* Hitler held a General Election in March of 1933, just after the Reichstag fire and the passing of the Enablement Act.
This is really getting irritating. I try to not be arrogant or condescending, but you end up just making a mockery of yourself. Every time you say "I don't remember" it really is you not remembering. Or just not knowing. Either you're lying about those history courses, or it just simply didn't stick. You know, I took a course in organic chemistry once. Don't remember a lick of it, which is why I refrain from taking any strong stance in a discussion on the subject. Because that would make me look like a fool and a pompous ass. Which I would be.
3. One of Hitler's first orders of business was to nationalize the economy. Bush's tax cuts are in effect the opposite of that.
Bush is right, Hitler left. Both are authoritarian, and that's the part that matters. Does it really matter so much what social policies your dictator implements while in power?
4. Death camps
Were the death camps public knowledge at the time? Have you been to Guantanamo Bay?
And I now direct you to my first post, which was basically a rant about how people could be stupid enough to fail to learn the
Your arrogant condescending post really showed me my ignorant ways.
I was arrogant and condescending. You were arrogant, condescending, and also had no idea what you were talking about. "yeah I forgot all about the part where poland flew a few planes into downtown berlin" you said, arrogantly, condescendingly, and ignorantly.
How could I have missed it? Bush really is just like Hitler, maybe worse!
Glorious straw man! If you have been paying attention, my whole point was that Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, but that shouldn't stop you from being able to see the god-damn historical pattern.
Then again, knowing what pattern you're looking for helps, eh?
Despite the fact that you are making some assumptions that clearly arent true... I am not a product of the US public school system. I have taken plenty of college history courses, and still read historical stuff for enjoyment... oh and Im hardly a Republican myself....
Look, you're the one that assumed I'm incapable of thinking bad thoughts about a Democrat, based solely on me not liking Bush. If that doesn't indicate partisanship, what does? So I was wrong.
And I assumed you were a product of the U.S. school system because that would give an excuse for your ignorance. I'm really curious how you managed to take "plenty of college history" but not know anything the God-damned burning of the Reichstag! My definition of "plently" is "more than enough", but that apparently isn't the same definition you're using.
Okay, so now that I know you're not a Republican and have an extensive non-public-school history education, let me ask you: What on God's Green Earth is your excuse for not knowing about the Reichstag?!
and still read historical stuff for enjoyment...
To quote Brian of Family Guy: "Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't... nothing?"
I dont know how I missed that Bush is just like Hitler. Guess I am just ignorant.
Yes, you are. You've already demonstrated it, so stop saying it sarcastically like it isn't true. You are ignorant on this subject.
Still, if someone as educated and learned as yourself could enlighten me on just one point:
I'm not claiming to be that educated and learned. This is basic history. Even the most cursory examination of the Nazi rise to power will feature the burning of the Reichstag as a turning point in German history.
I'm also not claiming that it's my task to enlighten you. Nor it is my responsibility to. You ignorance has been pointed out to you, and you either care and will fix it or you won't.
Please explain to me how anything Bush is doing is any worse than anything FDR did. I eagerly await your response.
Still stuck on that, eh? My original reply addressed some of these issues, but again I really didn't see the point in discussing this with someone who thinks not knowing is a strong argumentative position.
But in short:
If I was God, FDR would have earned his own special place in Hell for the internment camps.
FDR gets a special Hell-fork in the ass for his own personal Reichstag, Pearl Harbor, and for knowing more about it before hand than was let on at the time (there are interesting historical comparisons all over, aren't there?).
The lesson of Social Security we may see replayed literally when they get us to swallow government-controlled tracking devices by coating them in chocolate.
As far as I'm aware, habeus corpus and other Constitutional rights weren't removed as a matter of law (they were as a matter of practice, if you happened to be Japanese). I'm not aware of any laws that granted him additional powers that weren't temporary -- ie until the end of the War, which unlike some other Wars had the distinction of having an enemy who could surrender, and thus end the War.
If you have anything you'd like to add, feel free. I am sincere
I'm not saying that these problems should be hidden, but when the patch itself provides the information needed to create an exploit, it shouldn't be revealed until the distros have been given a chance to prepare fixes. If there is already a confirmed exploit, all bets are off.
:)
Ah, you're making more sense now.
And I agree, by and large. In the case where it is the maintainers of the app who discover the vulnerability or they are otherwise fairly confident that the vulnerability is not widely known, then it is the responsible thing to do to inform the distros first.
In the case of OpenSSH, there was a known exploit in the wild.
In a perfect world, I completely agree with you. Given the limitations of the human beings sitting between my servers and OpenSSH's CVS, I'd rather see some allowances made. Taken to absurd levels, would you rather see security bugs posted to slashdot before the upstream authors are even informed about them? Obviously there has to be a certain amount of secrecy, the question is where do you draw the line.
If you care about the OpenSSH or Sendmail vulnerability, then the only human between your servers and the OpenSSH CVS should be you. If you are using apt-get as anything but a convenience feature then you shouldn't be a sysadmin (which is what servers implies to me, as opposed to a guy like me who is in charge of his one server at home). IMO, of course.
Though again I agree that it is a matter of where to draw the line. I don't believe that only releasing information early if there is a known exploit is the right place. If the bug itself is known, even without working exploit code, then getting the patch out as quickly as possible should become first prority, the convenience of distros second. Especially in the case of something like a buffer overrun, where the method of exploiting the bug is well known and thus a hundred exploits could be written and only disseminated to victims.
But anyway, yeah, if the bug hadn't already been out in the wild, I'd say that OpenSSH did the wrong thing. I don't know about the Sendmail bug, but I think anyone running that had really better be able to handle patching it themselves.
If the Debian developers had proper notice they could have worked out these issues without wasting everyone's time and bandwidth fixing the same problem twice. Give the system the time it needs to fix things properly... That's all I'm saying.
I'm not following you. I think you're saying that the OpenSSH folks should have told Debian and the other distros about the patch, then waited until they were all ready, then released the patch to the general public.
I can't tell if you think that the OpenSSH people were sitting on this patch for a while and then told us and the distros simultaneously, or if you think that they should have sat on the patch but only after telling the distros about it. There has to be some way to generate the time between the creation of the patch and when you'd like for them to officially release the patch.
Either way it comes up to "announce to distros first, then everyone else", which I have problems with. Everyone needed the patch, they needed it soon, and they needed it whether or not they happened to be using a particular distro!
So I'm still not seeing how OpenSSH did anything wrong. It seems to me that if testing is so important then the Debian folks should have spent longer testing it then. Why could not Debian decide to add that extra time you wanted themselves?
If you were wondering why Linux worms/viruses/whatever never seem to accomplish much of anything, the above is why. You almost feel sorry for the bugs.
:)
I never feel sorry for bugs. The only good thing about bugs is the merciless crushing of them. Unless they amuse me. Like the one that doesn't crash the program, but turns everything psychedelic colors. That one might get to stay, and become an easter egg or something.
I was faintly hoping that this would result in the bugs evolving to become more amusing and less harmful over time. Eventually all my programs would be crash-free and full of cool and neat features, without having to change or improve my coding style at all! Evolutionary time scales being what they are, results are still out on whether this holds true in practice.
For the sake of being somewhat on topic*, obviously I wouldn't do this if I was an ssh developer.
*There's a bug, and a patch to go with. Not much else to say. Being a Debian user I've already done the apt thing and patched.
I had a nice long post replying point-by-point, explaining how Hitler used fear of others to win power and pointing out that while Stalin-like in rule, Hitler was nothing like Stalin in coming or your other examples in coming to power. Unlike Russia when Stalin rose to power, Germany was a Democracy and so on.
But I stopped, because I read two things:
Im guessing your real problem is that it is a Republican in office.
At which point I guessed that your real problem is that you're more interested in partisan politics than in history and its lessons. A guess that was born out by:
yeah I forgot all about the part where poland flew a few planes into downtown berlin and killed thousands of people and the part where france was sending anthrax to german politians in the mail.
Yeah, maybe you did forget. Mabye. Though since I mentioned it in my last post, and "the Reichstag had just recently been burned down by 'communists'" doesn't seem to have refreshed your memory any, then maybe the problem is that you're ignorant.
So, here I stopped. There's no point in refuting the points of someone who wasn't even aware of the Reichstag attack. It'd be like discussing current events without knowing about September 11th. Very much like it. Would you debate U.S. policy with someone who wasn't aware of the WTC attacks?
I don't blame you, since you're probably a product of the American public school system (like myself) and thus woefully ignorant of history in general. I implore you to educate yourself about this critical point in history. Of all the President's qualities you could choose to emulate, please don't pick his dislike of reading.
Here's a -very- quick synopsis though, just to get you started:
- Germany is a Democracy with several parties, of which the Nazis are the strongest, nearing a majority of support.
- Arson committed on the Reichstag (German Congress building). Communists are fingered as the culprits.
- Ostensibly to respond to the immediate, dire threat of Communist terrorists, new legistlation granting vast new executive powers is steamrolled through with virtually no debate allowed.
- The dire, immediate threat of Communism becomes the dire, immediate threat of Poland.
- Based on afforementioned dire, immediate threat Germany invades Poland. From this point, you should have at least a vague idea of what happened.
You should also have at least a vague idea of why some people are noticing parallels. You surely aren't convinced, but hopefully you are at least lead to investigate further.
It really disgusts me all these people drawing parallels to Nazi germany. The situations are completely different. Oh and if Bush can be equated to Hitler, then what does that make FDR? oops, FDR was a Democrat, better not badmouth him.
You could assume I wouldn't badmouth him because of his party affiliation, but you'd be wrong. It really disgusts me when the ignorant attribute the opinions of others to their own foibles. As a result I probably strayed a little bit too far toward the wrong end of the continuum between "pointing out your ignorance" and "mocking your ignorance". So, sorry about that, but only a little.
I'm sure that a dose of 1 gram/ gram would suffice to kill them. That I don't know how much less shouldn't be cause to claim that it's safe.
:)
So not knowing where the lethal dose is between "less than 100% of the mass of the animal" and "more than what the animal could feasibly consume" isn't enough to claim it is safe?!
What, are you worried a dump truck full of THC tablets are going to fall into your mouth?
Really? Has such a thing happened to you? Has such a thing happened to anyone you know? again, grow up and get some perspective. You think this is like living in nazi germany? Go live in north korea (yes, I have friends from there). I think that would give you some idea of what a fascist dictatorship is, and maybe you would realize your country is not so bad after all.
You think that's bad? Try living on Pluto (yes, I have friends from there). You just even try complaining about the cruel fascist dictatorship you used to live in when it's 35 degrees Kelvin!
Which is just a way of pointing out the silliness of the "Well, it's worse over there!" argument. Yes, it sucks more some place or time elsewhere. If I only had the option of living in North Korea or fascist Italy, I'd probably pick Italy. But that doesn't mean I think Musollini was cool, or not a fascist dictator, does it?
And here's what a lot of people forget when the whole "Gee, there are alarming similarities between the Bush administration and the Hitler administration" thing comes up and they go "Oh, but Hitler killed six million Jews!": Hitler did that, but he didn't do that until after he had solidified his power as Die Furer.
Look at Nazism at the equivalent point in history. Hitler is President, and the Reichstag had just recently been burned down by "communists", which was then used as justification to expand government power, the creation of the Gestapo, and the starting of wars. Fearing for their safety, the people followed Hitler because he promised to make them safe.
The parallels are there and they are obvious and they are alarming. When Hitler was at this point, he was only warming up, and tell me this does it sound to you like Bush and Ashcroft are slowing down their attempts to gather more power?
Here's what really bothers me. World War II should be the perfect example of how those in power can use propaganda and fear to control their populace and turn what was a Democracy into a Dictatorship and why it's bad to let that happen. It was the ultimate fucking lesson of the school of hard knocks, with the low low tuition price of forty million lives.
But some people, and coincidentally in my experience always Americans, haven't learned the lesson at all, and that's sad.
"But Hitler killed six million Jews! How many Jews has Bush killed?!" How many Jews did Hitler kill while President? The Jew-killing thing didn't happen until later. It (Nazism, that is) started out seeming fairly reasonable. They won an election, and by a larger margin than Bush! But things started to creep in the direction of a police state, but not enough to alarm people who though it was all for their own safety from the evil Arabs^W Communists. Good, the Gestapo will keep us safe, they said. Eventually, things got worse. Then they got bad. Then six million Jews died (along with a good 30+ million other people).
It's as if the lesson was too huge for people. Forty million people died, six million civilians killed due to their race. It's nearly unthinkable, and unthikable that it could happen again. So people dismiss it! "Oh, Bush would never shovel Jews into gas chambers!" So what?! Do you want to give him the chance and find out? Do you think the only bad thing about Nazi Germany was gas chambers? Why does the end result have to be equally horrific before you'll see that it's a problem?
I don't get it. When you watch the safety video in shop class and it shows a huge industrial band saw hacking off a careless worker's hand, do you throw caution to the wind because it's obvious the little saw in the shop is unlikely to do any worse than sever a finger? Your response: No, that would be really, really stupid and show a profound inability to generalize problems and analyze risk.
What if it wasn't a video, but your friend in real life five minutes ago. You'd have to be a real idiot then not to use caution, wouldn't y
develop nuclear power and many other nuclear applications (in agriculture, medicine, environmental protection).
Great idea! Nobody is going to fuck with Mother Nature once she's packing nukes!
Here I could make a crack about how that might just make Bush attack the environment even more, but I'm not above that.
Yeah, it's pretty funny when the manual says "120 seconds skip protection, twenty minutes skip protection in mp3 mode."
How about the fact that his first post about how he doesn't have a girlfriend and the mysterious "girl" the jocks keep telling him about? That sounds like lonely hetero geek to me, not happy homo geek.
:)
I could be wrong though. Either way, I feel the information I provided will be useful.
Dude, look out!
/., it means you're probably paying for a guy.
First, $ex means it's something you pay for.
Second, since this is
That's why you get a CD mp3 player that supports "directories", a convenient method that allows a hierarchical organization of files. You know, like Artist/Album/track#-Name.mp3.
This works great on my Rio Volt, which lets you easily move up and down through the directories, and even has neat things like "directory shuffle" or "Album shuffle" where it randomly selects a directory and plays the songs in order. The track#-name.mp3 keeps the name short so it mostly shows up on the small LCD display when scanning tracks quickly, and fixes problems I had with really long filenames.
Anyway, organizing a CD shouldn't be any harder than organizing a lot of mp3s on your computer's hard disk.
fear is deeper: less controllable, less rationalizable, and mostly, extremely personal.
I don't believe this. Actually, I think the opposite. Fear is more controllable, and more rational. A person who is afraid if shown why they should not be afraid may be convinced. Show a person who is in love why they should not be in love, and you will get a range of reactions between denial and outright aggression against you.
Fear is fundamentally more rational because fear is nothing but the emotional expression of the survival instinct. When survival is assured, then fear is minimal. When survival is in question, then fear increases. People are afraid of things because they believe those things may damage their ability to survive. It's cause and effect, and if you can prove to someone that the cause they are concerned about won't cause the effect they fear (death), then that fear can be assuaged.
Even fear of the unknown follows this (if you don't know what it is, how do you determine whether it will kill you?) and is the easiest for others to use because maintaining the fear merely requires maintaining the ignorance of the fearful. But educate the ignorant fearful and they might not be afraid anymore.
Fear can be irrational, of course, just as everything humans do can be. But we have a word for irrational fear: Phobia.
Irrational love, however, is redundant. Love is also extremely personal because each person's reasons for loving are different. Most people have a difficult time explaining why they are in love, beyond poetic metaphor.
expressions of love and hate are the currency of social discouse, but cognition of fear cannot be shared, cannot be amortized, cannot be assuaged by anyone except the one feeling the fear. thus, fear is more valuable because it cannot be parlayed once planted.
Fear is the currency of social discourse. When do love and hate even come up? Fear is what drives the news, the issues, and the debates. The economy, unemployment, terrorism, Saddam Hussein's WMDs, Texas redistricting. It's all fear.
Cognition of fear can absolutely be shared, since fear almost always has a "cause" that leads to an undesired "effect" which is what the person fears. These are the real-world foundations of fear that we can discuss and rationalize about. Since everyone has a common basis for our fears (survival instinct) it is a uniquely shareable emotion.
these things everyone knows, some people use, and some some people abuse.
The reason fear is abused is because it is the easiest thing to share, and thus the easiest thing to use on the masses. Causing fear is as easy as convincing someone that something will likely kill/harm them. It has nothing to do with the difficulty in removing fear. In fact, the abusers know how fragile fear can be in the face of knowledge. This is why we hear only vague threats of danger and hints of proof, and why the "Terror Alert" does nothing but provide an abstract "fear level" rather than any specific, useful information.
store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen.
;)
That must be one hell of a spindle! Got a patent on it?
But yes, the physical CDs are nothing but a "backup" medium that rarely see the light of day around my place as well.
What's funny is that I had a CD stolen, and I recovered the music off gnapster. This kinda amuses me, since I was actually robbed, as I no longer had the physical CD I bought. But using the service that the RIAA claims is stealing, I was able to recover my music and nobody else lost anything at all.
Whatever. Since I discovered emusic.com, I don't "boycott" the RIAA so much as simply not care about them at all. An independent record store would accomplish more or less the same thing: Better music, less evil.
I'm thinking ala 'Fifth element'. minus the anoyying automated ticket giver.
:)
That's funny... I'm sure there's law enforcement and law makers that are thinking ala "Fifth Element" minus the flying car.
Or at least Fry's. They're there, in the consumer electronics section, which to me pretty much means we can cross that off the list.
Crap. Just like in every other aspect of life, some people and organisations did the work and some didn't.
:)
Yes. The ones that did the work were the ones that had a reason to care. The ones that didn't were the ones that didn't. Amazing, huh? Or do you think the CTOs and engineers at these companies just said "Oh, USA Today says the world will end, we have to fix it!" No, the looked at their code, and what it was used for, and decided if they needed to do anything.
"Some people and organisations" that did the work would be banks and power plants and missle silos. You know, the ones that USA Today told you would cause Armageddon but didn't because those people understood the problem and fixed it.
"Some didn't" and those some were the ones that looked at their code and what it did and decided they didn't care. Most didn't care. The ones that did fixed it.
If there was a real problem we would have seen the companies that were prepared sail through without a hitch and the others fail.
I'm sure there were problems. But you probably didn't hear about Bob's Discount Fish Outlet's warehouse database automatically ordering an extra crate of herring because it thougt it had been 100 years since it had done so. Everything you would have heard about fell into either "don't care" or "fixed it".
Nothing happened. It was pure hype.
Something did happen. What happened is a lot of programmers around the world looked at the problem realisticaly, and fixed it where necessary. A lot of work went into making sure that on New Year's Day you could watch the rest of the world celebrate on CNN as Midnight treked around the world while checking your online bank teller to see your $12.36 sitting there safe and sound. That wasn't hype. That was engineers working hard to fix a problem. And while I had nothing personally to do with the situation, I dislike it when members of my profession kick ass at solving a real problem well enough that it doesn't affect you at all, and you call it "hype".
Oh well. It's not as exciting as Armageddon, and there's no Steve Buscemi, but danger averted is still pretty cool in my book.
P.S. No, there almost certainly wasn't going to be Armageddon in any serious way. No missles were going to launch just because the date changed. If they ever were in danger, you can bet those bastards checked it out well in advance. The media did blow it out of proportion, and quoted every engineer who said "there could be a problem; we have to look into it" as proof that we'd all die in nuclear blasts at 12:07am. So actually I blame them for your opinion. But you're still wrong!
Ralph Babel?
Uh-huh.
So Vogon poetry isn't really *that* bad?
No, it's much worse! Bad translation is the only reason Arthur and Ford were able to survive a whole stanza!
Oh yeah, I forgot that bit. Heh.
I can well imagine that although you will be able to diasble Palladium, programs like Windows Media Player, Real Player, may be Quicktime, etc. will refuse to install and run... :)
My prediction: The first application to require Palladium (as opposed to just supporting it, like WMP and Real will at first) will be Windows Update. For non-corporate users, anyway. It'll be an easy sale, since the argument for a secure way to update your OS is strong and valid. Of course, to use Automatic Update you'll have to leave Palladium on all the time. Eventually there'll be a patch that'll turn it on and leave it on whether you like it or not, possibly as part of a fix to a critical security vulnerability. My guess is also that if Palladium has flown that long, few people will care.
I'll probably butcher it, but you should get the gist:
Long ago, Horse was troubled by Wolf, in the sense that Wolf wanted to eat him. Horse knew he could not best Wolf, so he came to Man and said: "Wolf is our common enemy. Let us join forces to defeat him." Man said: "Very well. Let me put this saddle and bridle on you, so I may ride while we hunt Wolf." Horse agreed, and using his speed and Man's spear, they hunted down and killed Wolf. Horse then said: "Wolf is defeated! Now that the danger has past, you can remove the saddle and bridle." Man laughed and said "But I like it up here! Now giddyap!"
The lessons of this story are twofold: Horses are gullible idiots, and Man can't be trusted to relinquish power once given it.
So the question is, are you Horse or Man?
Let me be more direct: You do realize that once you have a Palladium-based system, the ability to turn it on and off is a feature which can be disabled, right? Oh, but I'm sure they won't, right? *Whinny!*