It says if I click on any link I agree to the terms of service. I use a firefox extension to view pages without clicking on anything. So obviously I do not hold to those restrictions.
The problem with that is that some software will not run, and you will only find out about it midway through a long project on a single dependency that you try to fake in some repeatable, but absolutely awful way. If you would have just listened to them then you wouldn't have this problem.
So you have to get really good at being able to tell when there is an issue, and what things to test that may be critical.
Unless it's Centos/Redhat. That will just work (although some applications will complain that you are not running a correct os on dependency checks. Then you just ignore it.)
It is. I work for a big enterprise. We use CentOS because it works, and I don't have to go through any financial hoops and approval processes to spin up 200 machines on a dime.
I run Oracle on them as well. No issues, this is just political maneuvering.
You walk into Best Buy, select your merchandise then take it to a checkout counter. The clerk charges you $0.00 and the receipt reflects that. You exit the store and on the way to your car the manager approaches you and steals some cash out of your wallet without your permission.
Have you ever looked at your check in a restaurant and noticed that the waiter forgot to charge you for something your ordered and ate? What do you do? I tell the waiter so they can add it to the check. Then I pay for what I ate. All of it. It's the right thing to do and that's the kind of society I want my kids to inherit.
Doesn't have anything to do with the parent or discussion. I do the same thing, however under no circumstances what so ever do I feel like they should charge after the transaction.
They can/should ask for it to be returned, but to charge money at will for a transaction they screwed up. That should be flatly illegal, if it isn't already.
You're fighting your straw admirably though. Throw in some more about "who is the better man" next time. Your righteous indignation wasn't coming across as well.
Iraq had a murdering thug who theoretically won the support of an elected government, except that you would be shot for voting against Saddam. So the legitimately part falls flat.
Thankfully when he was the worst brutal tyrant he could be, we supported him with money and weapons. When he did what we wanted, and was useful to us regardless of the killing and repression he was fine. When it was useful for us to attack him, we did.
Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time.
The rest of your statement is right, but come on. We all know Reagan didn't know anything. He was a puppet, and nothing more.
That is one time we can all beileve he really didn't know about the contras. I doubt anyone would tell the spokesperson for GM about making their cars unsafe to increase profits.
Don't forget that Bush and his corp are retroactively cleared of war crimes, which Gonzales has been asking for since he started, and is actually illegal.
The fundamental problem is that the current White house administration is not remotely curious or interested in looking beyond their narrowly defined agendas.
Because Corportations look towards short term profit, and not long term consequences.
If General Motors decided tomorrow to invest all of it's money on a new energy car, while the rest of the companies are working to maximize short term profits, General Motors will be run out of business.
Our Government is nothing but a Corporation with the same top down facist goverment internally as every other corporation.
It's not shocking that they are completely unprepared to help the people they spend the least time thinking about.
I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site
If the world doesn't exist, there won't be nerds. This affects all of us, our lives and the lives of everyone on the planet.
The affects of the gloabl super power which chooses to bully the rest of the world are in large part about survival.
I.E., this is the purpose of all sites, and damn well should be... Oh.. and you can just not read. No one is forcing you, stand up for yourself... commie.
President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps significantly.
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.
In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."
Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."
Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 -- 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.
The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." T
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, all this April 1 faux-story crap is neither amusing nor interesting. What's the fucking point?
The real question is how the hell so many of you have the time to complain about it. You know it's going to continue. You know when it will stop.
Here's a change for April Fool's day, Go outside!
You win, that was hilarious.
Without reading this thread, I would have never thought that having concerns other than being social at work would annoy people.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a book to read over lunch.
It says if I click on any link I agree to the terms of service. I use a firefox extension to view pages without clicking on anything. So obviously I do not hold to those restrictions.
The intention of weaponizing space is clear. It's an attack system, and any and all such systems should be banned, and destroyed on launch.
The problem with that is that some software will not run, and you will only find out about it midway through a long project on a single dependency that you try to fake in some repeatable, but absolutely awful way. If you would have just listened to them then you wouldn't have this problem.
So you have to get really good at being able to tell when there is an issue, and what things to test that may be critical.
Unless it's Centos/Redhat. That will just work (although some applications will complain that you are not running a correct os on dependency checks. Then you just ignore it.)
It is. I work for a big enterprise. We use CentOS because it works, and I don't have to go through any financial hoops and approval processes to spin up 200 machines on a dime.
I run Oracle on them as well. No issues, this is just political maneuvering.
You walk into Best Buy, select your merchandise then take it to a checkout counter. The clerk charges you $0.00 and the receipt reflects that. You exit the store and on the way to your car the manager approaches you and steals some cash out of your wallet without your permission.
Realistically, what's going to happen next?
Have you ever looked at your check in a restaurant and noticed that the waiter forgot to charge you for something your ordered and ate? What do you do? I tell the waiter so they can add it to the check. Then I pay for what I ate. All of it. It's the right thing to do and that's the kind of society I want my kids to inherit.
Doesn't have anything to do with the parent or discussion. I do the same thing, however under no circumstances what so ever do I feel like they should charge after the transaction.
They can/should ask for it to be returned, but to charge money at will for a transaction they screwed up. That should be flatly illegal, if it isn't already.
You're fighting your straw admirably though. Throw in some more about "who is the better man" next time. Your righteous indignation wasn't coming across as well.
So they underestimated how successful they'd be, and will quickly throw money at the problem and correct the issue.
I don't see this as positive, or negative. It happened, if they fix it quickly we'll all move on.
s/neither good or//
Is it possible that the policies your government implements (in your name BTW) could have something to do with inciting that hatred you speak of?
Not just in your name, it's your responsibility. It's all of our responsibility, if we're not changing it, we're allowing it to happen.
That's you, and that's me.
Space weaponry is an attack first weapon. Not a "defensive" weapon.
Everyone understands this except the American public. Not unlike many other topics.
Iraq had a murdering thug who theoretically won the support of an elected government, except that you would be shot for voting against Saddam. So the legitimately part falls flat.
Thankfully when he was the worst brutal tyrant he could be, we supported him with money and weapons. When he did what we wanted, and was useful to us regardless of the killing and repression he was fine. When it was useful for us to attack him, we did.
So your argument falls flat.
Here's a report on Chile
and you forgot
that we funded while he was committing his worst atrocities.
As it turns out, he was the only guy in the house who could see what was coming.
They all knew what was coming. They just don't beileve that matters. Colin Powel had enough.. way too late.
The really depressing thing is, that's not even a complete list. I see many places missing that we've spent millions on regime change.
Cliton was by no means a saint. The bombing of a pharmacutical plant in Sudan was atrocious.
But Bush is of a worse breed by far.
Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time.
The rest of your statement is right, but come on. We all know Reagan didn't know anything. He was a puppet, and nothing more.
That is one time we can all beileve he really didn't know about the contras. I doubt anyone would tell the spokesperson for GM about making their cars unsafe to increase profits.
Post anything remotely conservative, and be modded into troll oblivion.
Poor conservatives. If only you had the House.. Or the Senate.. Or the Judiciary... Or the Presidency...
Poor little conservatives, always beaten down by the brutal media.
*sniffle*
That's why so many government officials can truly say they don't recall seeing the "smoking gun" document since it never came across their desk.
It's just a lie. Don't rationalize the lies.
That's why they can just blame it a few levels lower. I didn't know they were torturing...
Well, yes I did try to get the torture bill passed, but I didn't think we'd actually USE it.
Don't forget that Bush and his corp are retroactively cleared of war crimes, which Gonzales has been asking for since he started, and is actually illegal.
If you're for this, you are so indoctrinated argument is meaningless.
The fundamental problem is that the current White house administration is not remotely curious or interested in looking beyond their narrowly defined agendas.
Because Corportations look towards short term profit, and not long term consequences.
If General Motors decided tomorrow to invest all of it's money on a new energy car, while the rest of the companies are working to maximize short term profits, General Motors will be run out of business.
Our Government is nothing but a Corporation with the same top down facist goverment internally as every other corporation.
It's not shocking that they are completely unprepared to help the people they spend the least time thinking about.
I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site
.. Oh.. and you can just not read. No one is forcing you, stand up for yourself... commie.
If the world doesn't exist, there won't be nerds. This affects all of us, our lives and the lives of everyone on the planet.
The affects of the gloabl super power which chooses to bully the rest of the world are in large part about survival.
I.E., this is the purpose of all sites, and damn well should be.
President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps significantly.
... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.
In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."
Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."
Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 -- 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.
The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." T