So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
Yes.. they do every day. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is enforced through civil orders. The state (Federal Gov't) will crack down mercilessly on overt racists (as well they should) who have never been convicted of anything. The civil courts can impose fines that will drive a discriminatory employer out of business. The civil courts can jail unrepentant business owners for contempt of the orders. *Suspected* members of hate groups are typically barred from military or police service and if found, they are expelled immediately. Do you have a problem with that too? I thought not.
You probably don't have a general objection to the state exercising those powers, but an objection of whom they are exercised against. You just don't like whose ox is getting gored in this instance. So step down from the hypocritical high-horse and realized it is the raison d'etre of the state to control anti-social behavior. When odious morons (racists, hoodlums, cyber-criminals) inflict odious behavior on the rest of us, we expect the state to protect us. This is just a case of you disagreeing with the definition of what constitutes sufficient anti-social behavior as to require control. We have a democratic process to define what those limits are. But not everybody prevails in democratic decision making and that is just the way the game of democracy is played. Be glad we (unlike the British) have a written constitution that at least limits how far it can go.
Americans have some notion that the courts are "protectors" of their rights. But the courts are instruments of coercion and their orders are ultimately backed by the sheriff's or marshal's gun. It's just a matter of who is controlling the court and making the laws. Sometimes you will agree, and sometimes you will disagree. That's the nature of a democracy.
Domestic Casinos are regulated. The states with casinos have "Gaming Commissions" to keep the casinos (more or less) honnest. When you go to a Nevada casino, you know that the Nevada Gaming Commission has examined the slots and certified the dealers and operators. If a casino is consistantly fraudulant, the Gaming Commission will shut it down and put the criminals in jail. You have no such assurance online. Additionally, on-line games are easier to rig than physical games. You can watch a dealer and see the cards at a casino. But you can never see how the game was progammed in the computer in [insert shady third-world country with lax law-enforement].
Gambling online is like giving your credit card number to the Nigerians or Russians. In fact, it probably IS giving your credit card number to the Nigerians or Russians. There might be some honnest on-line casinos, but you can never be sure.
This law is just as much a GOOD THING(tm) as any other anti-fraud law on the books, because it will help protect a percentage of the guilable from being duped.
I would wager that 9x authenticating against AD per se is not the problem, its having 9x plugged in at all and running on their internal network that's the problem. Allowing it to authenticate is just encouraging the problem.
Also, since 9x boxes were client machines, they would likely have users interacting on them and therefore more things are likely to go wrong than just having a service running on a firewalled NT box in the closet. If MS is no longer supporting 9x, then the AV vendors aren't going to either (at least not for long). A firewall isn't necessarily going to stop a naughty user from bolloxing your entire internal net by clicking on an email attachment (that has not been sanitized because your AV vendor no longer supports 9x).
First, if this guy was going to Guantanamo Bay, he'd already be there. You can tell that he is not going there because this is being handled publically in civil courts. He is going to have a public trial before a regularly constituted court, and if convicted he will go to a civilian federal prison.
Secondly, you obviously have no idea of what constitutes fascism as a political and economic ideology, please read up on it here.
Third, can you please tone down the knee-jerk anti-americanism is regards to random subjects that have nothing to do with its foreign policy?
Massachusetts was the last US State in to disestablish its state church in 1833 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church). The state church in MA was Congregationalism (which I think is now part of the very liberal "United Church of Christ"). When MA abolished state religion, they did it as a matter of public policy, not because the US constitution forced them. The idea that the several states are forbidden by the Federal constitutions to have a state religion is fairly modern and was only expressed by the Supreme Court in the 1940s. Up until then, established religion by the individual states and local communities was considered compatible with the federal constitution because the Bill of Rights was usually interpreted to only apply at the Federal level. However, as a practical matter, AFAIK every state has had a prohibition on offically established religion as a part of their state constitutions for a very long time.
Outside of the wireless router arena, what other embedded devices are hackable? I would love to find something *cheap* with ethernet, enough ram, onboard flash (for the OS) and a CF socket/IDE (for data storage) that I could turn into a fanless fetchmail-imap server appliance (or even a general purpose server). I did some googling and so far only the soekris stuff looks promising. Any suggestions?
Well, here's the deal with tradition. Obviously, slavish devotion to an idea or behavior simply because it is "tradition" is not always a good thing. But *most* traditional mores are a good thing (as I will explain later). I don't think acting reflexively is good, but not everyone will engage in deep reflection before they decide to take a particular action. If somebody needed a quick guide of right or wrong in regards to a course of action (i.e if one had to quickly pick between reflexive acceptance of tradition and reflexive rejection) then the acceptance would be better. In other words, its better to error on the side of caution.
Human societies (note the plural) are not young. There have been many trials and errors of different ways of organizing society from simple hunter-gather societies to urban industrial societies. Over the many generations, a certain wisdom gets distilled about what works and does not work. You might think of it as a form of social evolution where useful behavior/ideas are selected (i.e. socially encouraged or rewarded) and harmful behavior/ideas get non-selected (punished/discouraged). The selection of good behavior can range from a mild form such as being considered trusted as honest to stronger forms such as achieving higher social status and privilege . The non-selection of harmful behavior/ideas can range from strong forms such as criminalization to milder forms such as shunning or scolding. This selection of good behavior is transmitted to the next generation as a traditional social moral
So what you will find is that traditional mores are adopted because they served some social good. Now the traditional mores that most people dwell are those involving sexual behavior. So, lets talk about that. First consider the social goal (i.e. "the Good Thing [tm]) that you want to encourage. In most societies, it has been protecting and providing for the weakest members of society, the children. Most societies, through trial and error, have determined over the generations that best way to provide for children is to have a strong and stable family where at least both parents are available to support the children. Sexual behavior, obviously has a strong impact on families from the actual conception of children to the drama and turmoil that follow adultery. Consequently, social rules in this area revolve around those dedicated to discouraging behavior that would undermine families or lead to children without support. So these social rules were not adopted to sexually repress people or crimp their fun, but to protect the weak.
No obviously, some past traditions have either outlived their usefulness or were never useful at all (such as racism). Perhaps they were based on pure superstition or the way of life has change sufficiently to render them obsolete. But more often than not, neither is the case, because they are usually about human nature and human nature does not change.
As far as hypocrisy and religion goes, just because somebody does not follow his own advice does not mean the advice itself is not sound, it just means he is weak and imperfect. And most of the traditional mores that are incorporated into religion can stand on their own. The bible may say "don't commit adultery" and "don't murder", but adultery and murder are bad ideas independent of the bible. More likely than not, the ideas were incorporated into the religion, because they were good ideas to begin with, rather than being pulled out of thin air
So to reflexively reject social convention, just because you can, really is a sign of immaturity. As I stated before, its really just adolescent rebellion (and hubris), to think you are smarter than the several thousand generations before you.
Unfortunately these immature people can vote and sue. Their political attitudes basically boil down to an extended version of adolescent rebellion and "self-expression" that is all about self but neither contains substantive content that expresses an idea nor adds to the public discourse. They are usually against traditional social mores (especially religious mores) because they have a vague sense that tradition is somehow repressive of their "self-expression", but they can't really tell you why because they have to admit that any society must have rules to control bad behavior in order to make collective living bearable.
If you look closely, you'll see that those who protest the loudest about "self-expression" are usually the most conformist, but their conformity is within their own group. They will claim that weird hair, tattoos, and body piercing are about expressing themselves and they don't care what other people think, but here is what puts the test to their lie; All (or most) of their friends will also have weird hair, tattoos, and body piercing. They would never wear a plaid polyester leisure suit in front of their friends, precisely because they do care what their friends think and they have a need to conform within their own social group.
When these folks have an idea to express other than senseless reflexive nihilism, I'll be listening. But I'm not holding my breath.
Can somebody who has actually used either UnixWare or OpenServer say if they have any redeeming qualities at all? From what I've read, they are actually the least capable of the modern unixes or unix-clones, even on x86(except perhaps for minix - which was just a teaching project anyway). Is there any reason why anybody would choose UnixWare or OpenServer for a new deployment?
It sounds like they think they have is a niffty middle-ware stack for cellphones and they want to use that as a hook for selling their Unix stuff. But if their middle-ware stack is so niffty that it would attract developers, why not port it to other systems to widen the audience and build a new business on that? That was the strategy taken by 'old SCO' aka Tarantella before they unloaded unix on Caldera.
Can anybody comment (intelligently) on their middleware?
Jumpstart would be great if I was setting up dozens of boxes, but I'm not. Just two or three. I still think pkg-getting off the internet would be the optimal solution if you just want a few boxes (although that would be leeching bandwith depending on how much you are downloading).
Solaris 10 and up doesn't come bundled with *any* statically built binaries anymore. The/sbin/sh and friends are all dynamically linked.
That suprises me. Isn't a static/sbin directory a unix canon? (Then again, Solaris 10 breaks with the past unix canons on smf versus rc.d/init too) What if/usr is down or needs a low-level fsck? I've always been told that that would mean you are totally screwed, unless you have static binaries in/. If I'm letting the package management/patch system update the libs, I don't see the problem with having it update a few kBs of static binaries in sbin while it is at it (unless the whole update is being done piecemeal).
No, because if usr is not mounted, the libs would have to be available somewhere in / and I would be responsible for maintaining and updating them myself (if I bothered to remember to do it at all). That would just increase the PITA factor and I might as well grumble and use sh at that point.
Wishlist: more pkg-get and flexible install
on
OpenSolaris One Year On
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
[qualifier]I've been working with Solaris 10, not OpenSolaris itself, but since the next Solaris will be a superset distribution of OpenSolaris, this should apply [/qualifier]
I've done a few console installs of Solaris 10 on some headless (and ancient) sparc netras. Here are some things that would make my life easier.
Make then entire system available as a pkg-get repository, not just the blastwave contributed programs. I don't want to download 4 cds of nonsense. Let me have one CD for a base install and ftp just the parts I want with pkg-get.
In line with the above, smpatch update seams to be painfully slow process. Pkg-get update for the base system please!
I haven't done any X-based installs, but my main bitch with the console install is that it is fairly inflexible. You get four options for package selection 1)really stripped down 2)stripped down 3)everything, 4)everthing plus OEM drivers. Finer grained control in package selection would be nice. Also nice would be a task-based pre-canned install set a la tasksel in debian or like what anaconda gives you in RH. Example: selecting a DNS task would install BIND but not X.
Please add some polish and make the default paths sane. Yes, I know this is a minor thing, but why do I have to spend several minutes adding/opt/sfw/bin:/usr/bin/:/usr/local/bin to my skel and.profile .
/root. You should have one. Yes, contrary to popular advice, I don't just su, I sometimes actually find it easier to log in as root. I don't like to clutter the / with junk. please make/root a default. Why do I have to munge/etc/passwd to get myself a/root home?
Would somebody please statically compile bash already? I've scoured google and I can't find one. Yes, I know sh and ksh, but I prefer bash and think it to be more capable and easier to use. It would be nice to have it available in single user mode.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the entire federal government got failing grades on their infosec security report card.
What percentage of companies would receive a failing grade on infosec security if they were held to the same tests and standards? Just a wild guess, but I would hazard over 90 percent. Not a month goes by without some business reporting sensative data loss, and it still happens, again and again. And be mindful that business have an easier time hushing up such things than the government. I saw an article a few days ago about how even HIPPA is being largely ignored now that the newness and enthusiasm has worn off
This loss was catastrophic and inexcusable, but it could easily happen to any private firm handling credit data too. As in this case, all it takes is one well meaning but stupid (and unlucky) employee to circumvent the rules and the world turns to crap.
I would guess that most corporations are less structured than the government in formulating and implementing policies. In fact, unlike the government, corporate policies are rarely backed by criminal laws. The worst a business can do is fire a negligent employee and maybe, just maybe, sue him, unless they can convince the local prosecutor that fraud was involved. The government can (and does) do all the above plus they can prosecute for simple negligence.
This guy, while obviously negligent and stupid, was probably not of malicious intent. He probably thought he was "serving the veterans" by working at home without compensation. Stupid and unlucky for him. As I said before "no good deed goes unpunished", but a more apt saying would be "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I think a larger issue than this one theft is that this same data exists out in the financial world too, handled by many outsourced companies and uncleared employees in a completely unregulated way. A better solution would be for Congress to nix this whole situtation by rendering SSNs usless for financial transactions by making it a crime for any firm to use or store SSNs **FOR ANY PURPOSE**, other than payroll tax collection for its own employees. The only people to whom your SSN should have any meaning and use ought to be you, the Federalis, and your employer. The credit agencies and data brokers would howl, but it should be done.
Goverment employees often contribute their own time to work on projects. This is a case of "no good deed goes unpunished." The guy was working on a project at home "unauthorized", his laptop and usb hdd get stolen, officals grandstand, and he gets fired at age 60 (perhaps without a pension).
No, No... China Pandering to WTO-USA on Piracy
on
Lenovo To Shun Linux
·
· Score: 1
You got it partly right, they are doing this to assure access to the US market. But not in the way that you think.
China is under enormous pressure to crack down on piracy. Most software in china is illegal. As far as Microsoft is concerned, every linux PC in china is equivalent to a "naked" PC, i.e. one that will be formated to install a pirated version of windows.
Lately, China has been trying to do just enought to avoid trade sactions by the US and WTO. No doubt they informed their highest visibility PC manufacturer to do this, so they will look like they are serious and head off sactions. This way they get some brownie points with Microsoft and the bought-and-paid-for MS lackeys at BSA (who lobby WTO and US Congress). Meanwhile, the rest of the chinese pc industries keeps on doing business as usual and ripping off commercial software left-and-right.
No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.
Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.
Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".
Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.
So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.
(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer; or
Notice that every ennumeration in the regulation is suffixed by "or", not "and". So any one of them would suffice. So the airline just says on the back of its ticket (i.e. the legally enforcable contract for carriage that you agree to when you buy the ticket), "You consent to have your information passed on to whomever we decide to give it". You are free to refuse the terms, like any contract. But if you don't agree to the terms, then they are free to not sell the ticket to you.
You shouldn't see different binaries for different distros. A Linux app should be an Linux app, period.
Amen! Not only is it frustrating figuring out where all the config files are, but having an app fail to install or work because of dependancy or lib versions is also frustrating. I remember having fits trying to install Oracle 8i (circa 1999-2000) and having the install fail because the linker was choking over libc version incompatabilities and LD_ASSUME_KERNEL settings. Ofcourse, all the problems could be resolved by tinkering and patching, but that turns a 30 minute install into a 2 hour install. Installs should be a clean process, not a tinkerthon.
I saw another post here that mentioned apgcc. This was the first i've heard of it, but from the description at its website, it looks like a good idea. Basically, it looks to enforce lowest common denominator libraries and static linking. I like the idea of a fat binary. I also like the idea of self contained app directories (I've never owned a Mac, but I've been lead to believe that is the way it works). Diskspace is cheap nowdays. I don't see why everything needs to be dynamically linked.
Now let me digress into the config file issue. This seems to be a favorite flame topic, so let me don my asbestos suit and jump in. IIRC, the cannonical UNIX practice is to install everything not part of the core OS into/usr/local, including the config files. Most linux distrubtions seem throw everything including the kitchen sink into/usr/bin and then put the config files in/etc. My own personal feelings on the matter are that nothing but core os components should go into/usr/bin and/etc (and no, GNOME and AFTERSTEP are not core OS componets). Everything else (including config files) into/usr/local or/opt.
If Apple can do universal binaries across architectures, you'd think all us linux whiz kids could get a cross distrubtion (and cross version) system of binaries working. Ofcourse, Apple has unitary leadership and direction, instead of "hearding piss-ants".
In this case, while the citation may be there, enough of the text is taken that there's no point in consulting the original article...The blogger adds no additional content, and effectively profits (whether in "community kudos" or adsense) from unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content.
Plagerism and copyright infringment are congruent, but not equivalent. I think what you're describing there is copyright infringement, not plagerism. I always thought of plagerism as passing somebody else's unattribuated work as your own (which may also be copyright infringement). In your description, with the attribution, it is straight up copyright infringment.
The problem at that point is drawing the line between fair use quotation and out-and-out copying.
The Soviet Russia joke about the screen watching you would be too easy.. (I believe it was the "orginal" soviet russia joke by Yakov Smirnov). How about a 1984 reference?
[O'Brian] - do we have the incriminating pictures of Smith yet?
[Faceless Functionary] - umm.. no sir, there seems to be something blocking the camera. Our systems seems to have been defeated.
[O'Brian]- What? We've spent millions developing this technology! There is nothing wrong with our system.
Slashdot Mirror
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
Yes.. they do every day. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is enforced through civil orders. The state (Federal Gov't) will crack down mercilessly on overt racists (as well they should) who have never been convicted of anything. The civil courts can impose fines that will drive a discriminatory employer out of business. The civil courts can jail unrepentant business owners for contempt of the orders. *Suspected* members of hate groups are typically barred from military or police service and if found, they are expelled immediately. Do you have a problem with that too? I thought not.
You probably don't have a general objection to the state exercising those powers, but an objection of whom they are exercised against. You just don't like whose ox is getting gored in this instance. So step down from the hypocritical high-horse and realized it is the raison d'etre of the state to control anti-social behavior. When odious morons (racists, hoodlums, cyber-criminals) inflict odious behavior on the rest of us, we expect the state to protect us. This is just a case of you disagreeing with the definition of what constitutes sufficient anti-social behavior as to require control. We have a democratic process to define what those limits are. But not everybody prevails in democratic decision making and that is just the way the game of democracy is played. Be glad we (unlike the British) have a written constitution that at least limits how far it can go.
Americans have some notion that the courts are "protectors" of their rights. But the courts are instruments of coercion and their orders are ultimately backed by the sheriff's or marshal's gun. It's just a matter of who is controlling the court and making the laws. Sometimes you will agree, and sometimes you will disagree. That's the nature of a democracy.
Domestic Casinos are regulated. The states with casinos have "Gaming Commissions" to keep the casinos (more or less) honnest. When you go to a Nevada casino, you know that the Nevada Gaming Commission has examined the slots and certified the dealers and operators. If a casino is consistantly fraudulant, the Gaming Commission will shut it down and put the criminals in jail. You have no such assurance online. Additionally, on-line games are easier to rig than physical games. You can watch a dealer and see the cards at a casino. But you can never see how the game was progammed in the computer in [insert shady third-world country with lax law-enforement].
Gambling online is like giving your credit card number to the Nigerians or Russians. In fact, it probably IS giving your credit card number to the Nigerians or Russians. There might be some honnest on-line casinos, but you can never be sure.
This law is just as much a GOOD THING(tm) as any other anti-fraud law on the books, because it will help protect a percentage of the guilable from being duped.
I would wager that 9x authenticating against AD per se is not the problem, its having 9x plugged in at all and running on their internal network that's the problem. Allowing it to authenticate is just encouraging the problem. Also, since 9x boxes were client machines, they would likely have users interacting on them and therefore more things are likely to go wrong than just having a service running on a firewalled NT box in the closet. If MS is no longer supporting 9x, then the AV vendors aren't going to either (at least not for long). A firewall isn't necessarily going to stop a naughty user from bolloxing your entire internal net by clicking on an email attachment (that has not been sanitized because your AV vendor no longer supports 9x).
First, if this guy was going to Guantanamo Bay, he'd already be there. You can tell that he is not going there because this is being handled publically in civil courts. He is going to have a public trial before a regularly constituted court, and if convicted he will go to a civilian federal prison.
Secondly, you obviously have no idea of what constitutes fascism as a political and economic ideology, please read up on it here.
Third, can you please tone down the knee-jerk anti-americanism is regards to random subjects that have nothing to do with its foreign policy?
Thank you
So, no.. the internal drive was not necessarily removed
Massachusetts was the last US State in to disestablish its state church in 1833 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church). The state church in MA was Congregationalism (which I think is now part of the very liberal "United Church of Christ"). When MA abolished state religion, they did it as a matter of public policy, not because the US constitution forced them. The idea that the several states are forbidden by the Federal constitutions to have a state religion is fairly modern and was only expressed by the Supreme Court in the 1940s. Up until then, established religion by the individual states and local communities was considered compatible with the federal constitution because the Bill of Rights was usually interpreted to only apply at the Federal level. However, as a practical matter, AFAIK every state has had a prohibition on offically established religion as a part of their state constitutions for a very long time.
Thanks, I'll check out the NSLU2.
Outside of the wireless router arena, what other embedded devices are hackable? I would love to find something *cheap* with ethernet, enough ram, onboard flash (for the OS) and a CF socket/IDE (for data storage) that I could turn into a fanless fetchmail-imap server appliance (or even a general purpose server). I did some googling and so far only the soekris stuff looks promising. Any suggestions?
Well, here's the deal with tradition. Obviously, slavish devotion to an idea or behavior simply because it is "tradition" is not always a good thing. But *most* traditional mores are a good thing (as I will explain later). I don't think acting reflexively is good, but not everyone will engage in deep reflection before they decide to take a particular action. If somebody needed a quick guide of right or wrong in regards to a course of action (i.e if one had to quickly pick between reflexive acceptance of tradition and reflexive rejection) then the acceptance would be better. In other words, its better to error on the side of caution.
Human societies (note the plural) are not young. There have been many trials and errors of different ways of organizing society from simple hunter-gather societies to urban industrial societies. Over the many generations, a certain wisdom gets distilled about what works and does not work. You might think of it as a form of social evolution where useful behavior/ideas are selected (i.e. socially encouraged or rewarded) and harmful behavior/ideas get non-selected (punished/discouraged). The selection of good behavior can range from a mild form such as being considered trusted as honest to stronger forms such as achieving higher social status and privilege . The non-selection of harmful behavior/ideas can range from strong forms such as criminalization to milder forms such as shunning or scolding. This selection of good behavior is transmitted to the next generation as a traditional social moral
So what you will find is that traditional mores are adopted because they served some social good. Now the traditional mores that most people dwell are those involving sexual behavior. So, lets talk about that. First consider the social goal (i.e. "the Good Thing [tm]) that you want to encourage. In most societies, it has been protecting and providing for the weakest members of society, the children. Most societies, through trial and error, have determined over the generations that best way to provide for children is to have a strong and stable family where at least both parents are available to support the children. Sexual behavior, obviously has a strong impact on families from the actual conception of children to the drama and turmoil that follow adultery. Consequently, social rules in this area revolve around those dedicated to discouraging behavior that would undermine families or lead to children without support. So these social rules were not adopted to sexually repress people or crimp their fun, but to protect the weak.
No obviously, some past traditions have either outlived their usefulness or were never useful at all (such as racism). Perhaps they were based on pure superstition or the way of life has change sufficiently to render them obsolete. But more often than not, neither is the case, because they are usually about human nature and human nature does not change.
As far as hypocrisy and religion goes, just because somebody does not follow his own advice does not mean the advice itself is not sound, it just means he is weak and imperfect. And most of the traditional mores that are incorporated into religion can stand on their own. The bible may say "don't commit adultery" and "don't murder", but adultery and murder are bad ideas independent of the bible. More likely than not, the ideas were incorporated into the religion, because they were good ideas to begin with, rather than being pulled out of thin air
So to reflexively reject social convention, just because you can, really is a sign of immaturity. As I stated before, its really just adolescent rebellion (and hubris), to think you are smarter than the several thousand generations before you.
Unfortunately these immature people can vote and sue. Their political attitudes basically boil down to an extended version of adolescent rebellion and "self-expression" that is all about self but neither contains substantive content that expresses an idea nor adds to the public discourse. They are usually against traditional social mores (especially religious mores) because they have a vague sense that tradition is somehow repressive of their "self-expression", but they can't really tell you why because they have to admit that any society must have rules to control bad behavior in order to make collective living bearable.
If you look closely, you'll see that those who protest the loudest about "self-expression" are usually the most conformist, but their conformity is within their own group. They will claim that weird hair, tattoos, and body piercing are about expressing themselves and they don't care what other people think, but here is what puts the test to their lie; All (or most) of their friends will also have weird hair, tattoos, and body piercing. They would never wear a plaid polyester leisure suit in front of their friends, precisely because they do care what their friends think and they have a need to conform within their own social group.
When these folks have an idea to express other than senseless reflexive nihilism, I'll be listening. But I'm not holding my breath.
Can somebody who has actually used either UnixWare or OpenServer say if they have any redeeming qualities at all? From what I've read, they are actually the least capable of the modern unixes or unix-clones, even on x86(except perhaps for minix - which was just a teaching project anyway). Is there any reason why anybody would choose UnixWare or OpenServer for a new deployment?
It sounds like they think they have is a niffty middle-ware stack for cellphones and they want to use that as a hook for selling their Unix stuff. But if their middle-ware stack is so niffty that it would attract developers, why not port it to other systems to widen the audience and build a new business on that? That was the strategy taken by 'old SCO' aka Tarantella before they unloaded unix on Caldera.
Can anybody comment (intelligently) on their middleware?
This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone
Or it could be used to follow White Broncos
Thanks for the great advice and information.
/sbin/sh and friends are all dynamically linked.
/sbin directory a unix canon? (Then again, Solaris 10 breaks with the past unix canons on smf versus rc.d/init too) What if /usr is down or needs a low-level fsck? I've always been told that that would mean you are totally screwed, unless you have static binaries in /. If I'm letting the package management/patch system update the libs, I don't see the problem with having it update a few kBs of static binaries in sbin while it is at it (unless the whole update is being done piecemeal).
Jumpstart would be great if I was setting up dozens of boxes, but I'm not. Just two or three. I still think pkg-getting off the internet would be the optimal solution if you just want a few boxes (although that would be leeching bandwith depending on how much you are downloading).
Solaris 10 and up doesn't come bundled with *any* statically built binaries anymore. The
That suprises me. Isn't a static
No, because if usr is not mounted, the libs would have to be available somewhere in / and I would be responsible for maintaining and updating them myself (if I bothered to remember to do it at all). That would just increase the PITA factor and I might as well grumble and use sh at that point.
I've done a few console installs of Solaris 10 on some headless (and ancient) sparc netras. Here are some things that would make my life easier.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the entire federal government got failing grades on their infosec security report card.
What percentage of companies would receive a failing grade on infosec security if they were held to the same tests and standards? Just a wild guess, but I would hazard over 90 percent. Not a month goes by without some business reporting sensative data loss, and it still happens, again and again. And be mindful that business have an easier time hushing up such things than the government. I saw an article a few days ago about how even HIPPA is being largely ignored now that the newness and enthusiasm has worn off
This loss was catastrophic and inexcusable, but it could easily happen to any private firm handling credit data too. As in this case, all it takes is one well meaning but stupid (and unlucky) employee to circumvent the rules and the world turns to crap.
I would guess that most corporations are less structured than the government in formulating and implementing policies. In fact, unlike the government, corporate policies are rarely backed by criminal laws. The worst a business can do is fire a negligent employee and maybe, just maybe, sue him, unless they can convince the local prosecutor that fraud was involved. The government can (and does) do all the above plus they can prosecute for simple negligence.
This guy, while obviously negligent and stupid, was probably not of malicious intent. He probably thought he was "serving the veterans" by working at home without compensation. Stupid and unlucky for him. As I said before "no good deed goes unpunished", but a more apt saying would be "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I think a larger issue than this one theft is that this same data exists out in the financial world too, handled by many outsourced companies and uncleared employees in a completely unregulated way. A better solution would be for Congress to nix this whole situtation by rendering SSNs usless for financial transactions by making it a crime for any firm to use or store SSNs **FOR ANY PURPOSE**, other than payroll tax collection for its own employees. The only people to whom your SSN should have any meaning and use ought to be you, the Federalis, and your employer. The credit agencies and data brokers would howl, but it should be done.
Goverment employees often contribute their own time to work on projects. This is a case of "no good deed goes unpunished." The guy was working on a project at home "unauthorized", his laptop and usb hdd get stolen, officals grandstand, and he gets fired at age 60 (perhaps without a pension).
You got it partly right, they are doing this to assure access to the US market. But not in the way that you think.
China is under enormous pressure to crack down on piracy. Most software in china is illegal. As far as Microsoft is concerned, every linux PC in china is equivalent to a "naked" PC, i.e. one that will be formated to install a pirated version of windows.
Lately, China has been trying to do just enought to avoid trade sactions by the US and WTO. No doubt they informed their highest visibility PC manufacturer to do this, so they will look like they are serious and head off sactions. This way they get some brownie points with Microsoft and the bought-and-paid-for MS lackeys at BSA (who lobby WTO and US Congress). Meanwhile, the rest of the chinese pc industries keeps on doing business as usual and ripping off commercial software left-and-right.
Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.
Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.
Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".
Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.
So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.
(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer; or
Notice that every ennumeration in the regulation is suffixed by "or", not "and". So any one of them would suffice. So the airline just says on the back of its ticket (i.e. the legally enforcable contract for carriage that you agree to when you buy the ticket), "You consent to have your information passed on to whomever we decide to give it". You are free to refuse the terms, like any contract. But if you don't agree to the terms, then they are free to not sell the ticket to you.
You shouldn't see different binaries for different distros. A Linux app should be an Linux app, period.
/usr/local, including the config files. Most linux distrubtions seem throw everything including the kitchen sink into /usr/bin and then put the config files in /etc. My own personal feelings on the matter are that nothing but core os components should go into /usr/bin and /etc (and no, GNOME and AFTERSTEP are not core OS componets). Everything else (including config files) into /usr/local or /opt.
Amen! Not only is it frustrating figuring out where all the config files are, but having an app fail to install or work because of dependancy or lib versions is also frustrating. I remember having fits trying to install Oracle 8i (circa 1999-2000) and having the install fail because the linker was choking over libc version incompatabilities and LD_ASSUME_KERNEL settings. Ofcourse, all the problems could be resolved by tinkering and patching, but that turns a 30 minute install into a 2 hour install. Installs should be a clean process, not a tinkerthon.
I saw another post here that mentioned apgcc. This was the first i've heard of it, but from the description at its website, it looks like a good idea. Basically, it looks to enforce lowest common denominator libraries and static linking. I like the idea of a fat binary. I also like the idea of self contained app directories (I've never owned a Mac, but I've been lead to believe that is the way it works). Diskspace is cheap nowdays. I don't see why everything needs to be dynamically linked.
Now let me digress into the config file issue. This seems to be a favorite flame topic, so let me don my asbestos suit and jump in. IIRC, the cannonical UNIX practice is to install everything not part of the core OS into
If Apple can do universal binaries across architectures, you'd think all us linux whiz kids could get a cross distrubtion (and cross version) system of binaries working. Ofcourse, Apple has unitary leadership and direction, instead of "hearding piss-ants".
Location of Oil Wells, Gold Mines, etc on Federal Property
NT
In this case, while the citation may be there, enough of the text is taken that there's no point in consulting the original article ...The blogger adds no additional content, and effectively profits (whether in "community kudos" or adsense) from unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content.
Plagerism and copyright infringment are congruent, but not equivalent. I think what you're describing there is copyright infringement, not plagerism. I always thought of plagerism as passing somebody else's unattribuated work as your own (which may also be copyright infringement). In your description, with the attribution, it is straight up copyright infringment.
The problem at that point is drawing the line between fair use quotation and out-and-out copying.
The Soviet Russia joke about the screen watching you would be too easy.. (I believe it was the "orginal" soviet russia joke by Yakov Smirnov). How about a 1984 reference?
[O'Brian] - do we have the incriminating pictures of Smith yet? [Faceless Functionary] - umm.. no sir, there seems to be something blocking the camera. Our systems seems to have been defeated. [O'Brian]- What? We've spent millions developing this technology! There is nothing wrong with our system.