4500 US citizens died in Iraq, and around half a million Iraqi's died.
Died in support of a STUPID, FOREDOOMED policy. And just as disturbingly, a lot of foreign nationals died as well in the SUPPORT of that shit, as well as the enormous number you mention in opposition. There were non-US-citizens serving in the US armed forces including on the battlefield, locals co-opted into serving in allied services, acting as informers, and so on and so on.
CentOS, which is COMPLETELY legal and above board, has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with counterfeit Windows products.
CentOS: 1) Violates NO copyrights 2) Is not passing itself off as something else 3) Has never been treated by Redhat as anything but completely welcome. 4) Is produced by completely building from (libre!) source, not disk copying the install media. 5) Is careful to remove Redhat branding where trademarks are involved.
Jim Whitehurst never uttered the silly parallel as far as I can see, nor implied it. He just made the obvious point that CentOS does not hurt Redhat but may well help it.
Assuming you ran a mail and web server within the agreed bandwidth limits, how would you be abusing or over utilising the service?
Nobody said it was abusing or overutilizing. Body said it was utilizing more bandwidth. Why do you think they charge by the litre for motor fuel? They could just charge by the fillup, right? It is the absurdity of a flat monthly rate for internet connection that is the issue. The end-user pipes have become so gigantic that if everybody started running the water continuously at max rate, the general water pressure would fall to practically zero.
There is nothing wrong with your comment. Yes, at one point the grammar was slightly confused, but it was crystal clear. And made a good point. Unlike our anonymous putz.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the logic or not. When you make your own Ubuntu derivative, you are welcome to irrationally base it on a target that moves every six months and gives you only a couple of months to re-base every time it moves.
They do because they can. There is no IQ test or basic knowledge test or conflict of interest screening as a prerequisite for the right to vote. (Hell, parenthetically, you don't even have to be a citizen!). Are you really surprised that this pandering, megalomaniac creature is able to hood winkstupid people, ignorant people, and people dependent on government largesse?
The problem with the constitution is that the foundres underestimated some combination of: 1) how evil the supreme court judges would be 2) their ability to read basic English 3) their ability to use argue their rulings without using logical fallacies and unproven assumptions Too bad they seem to be failing in all of those area.
It would be nice to believe our problem is lack of prescience on the part of the founders, leading to a failure of the system to forestall evil, illiterate, stupid supreme court justices.
But it isn't. The problem is supreme court justices (and politicians) who see the constitution as simply a bothersome obstacle, consider that they know better what the best governing principles are for the country than a bunch of long dead white guys of European heritage. There is also an extremely large contribution to decay of rights due to corruption.
Having said that, my impulse is also to impugn the ability of the founders to foresee the mechanisms of decay, but on reflection that is not fair. No one of that era could have foreseen the astonishing loss by the people of resolution and interest in their own rights.
“A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin 'Well Doctor what have we got; a republic or a monarchy?'. 'A republic', replied the Doctor, 'if you can keep it.'” -- notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the constitutional convention.
Although the presentation layer is obviously different, I look at distros like this and Ultimate Edition (http://http://ultimateedition.info/) and have the same thought. "Why are they releasing new forks on 12.04 and not 13.04? This seems overcautious.
13.04 is only supported for NINE MONTHS. 12.04 is long term support, and is supported until 2017. 13.04 introduces the new policy of only 9 months support instead of 18 for non-LTS releases. It makes them pretty much nothing more than toys.
Nobody in their right mind would base anything on any Ubuntu releases except for the LTS releases.
Prove it. Prove that every piece of data would end up in a NSA datacenter
You are joking, right? No one has to prove that your data will end up in the NSA. It's nothing more nor less than a wise assumption. They have the motive, means, and opportunity. And the force of authority. The man with any wisdom whatsoever assumes the NSA (and potentially many others, independently) potentially knows every bit of data which he has ever reduced to concrete form: speech, writing, computer files. If the only form a piece of concrete data has is competently encrypted, then that is a measure of protection, but think about it. The encrypted data has to exist in free form before it is encrypted, and if it is transmitted to anyone else on purpose (except for backup), then the only possible reason is so that he can decrypt and view it. There you go, it's in free form again, subject to NSA snooping. The only completely safe form of "data" is your own private thoughts which you disclose to no one.
And you can't prove the NSA will NOT get any given piece of data, either. You can't prove a negative.
SSHDs as implemented by Seagate do not require any support whatsoever in the host. Their caching algorithm does not care anything about the FS. It is block level. I have one working just fine in arch linux. Linux just sees it as any other HD, only it is much faster overall. Obviously you will never see any improvement at all in huge file copies.
WD has some lame Windows-only SSHD tech that does require special software on the host.
Jesus. Anybody who thought that was an insult has a skin thickness measured in nanometers and could never cope with the conversation of English gentlemen.. It was a simple observation.
Carriers go for far over 50 nautic miles per hour, that is far over 64 land miles per hour. They might be sitting ducks in relation to an airplane. But if they go full throttle they leave their defenses out of sight in 30 minutes..
There's no polite way to say this. That statement is ignorant. First of all, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, not 64, but that is beside the point because 50 knots is a fantasy. The fastest carriers can reach 30 knots (34.5 mph) or slightly over. Which is fine, because they would be equally sitting ducks at twice the speed.
Two lousy CIWS are child's play to defeat even with a swarm of ancient subsonic Exocets timed to arrive simultaneously, let alone supersonic diving anti-ship missiles such as the mach 2.5 P-800 Oniks with 300 kg warhead or the mach 1.6-2.5 Granit with gigantic 750 kg warhead. If that's not enough, India has or will soon have the mach 2.8-3.0 Brahmos with 2-300 kg warhead, launchable from land, sea or air. And they are working on the mach 7 Brahmos-II.
China has the mach 10 DF-21D ship killer ballistic missile, which ranges 3000 km from land. The United States Naval Institute says that even the conventional warhead would be enough to destroy a large carrier with a single hit and that there is currently no defense against it.
All of these have a range in the hundreds to thousands of km. It would take a carrier several hours to more than one day to travel out of range, but the missiles only need several minutes.
No, they are not soldiers, and yes, absolutely it's about intimidation. They are organized thugs playing Nazi dress-up. And they don't have to bother demanding your "papersss" because they already have everybody in their database.
These thugs wouldn't last five minutes in a real battle. All their confrontations are at 1000:1 advantage in their favor. Real soldiers don't bother with intimidation, and will engage with or without the advantage in their favor.
But it's really smart to just roll over and give up, eh, o spineless one? I tell you the recourses that are available, that were provided you by wise and dedicated men, and your response is to ridicule the idea that they might be used. You can take that attitude and shove it. Most people in the world would be glad to have some of those recourses you spit on.
What makes you so sure that the same fucking stupid voters who favor liars, scum and low lifes magically do not favor what those dickheads create? It would be nice to believe that the voters' only failing is that they cannot get a grasp on the quality and values of their representatives, but somehow I very much doubt that is the only failing the voters have.
A true direct democracy where the preferences of retards, idiots, zealots, uneducated and crazy people carry just as much weight as those of wise people would be hell on earth. What do you think would happen if there was direct democracy in Afghanistan?
I already think in principle there should be an IQ test as a prerequisite to voting in our representative democracy, but I hasten to qualify with "in principle", because in reality the test would just be subverted to further take the people's rights away.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Thank you, Martin Niemöller. It works just as well if you fill in the categories with today's boogeymen instead of yesterday's.
SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.
Hell no. The supreme court can just rule any law they don't like unconstitutional and there is no recourse. The law is instantly voided. Furthermore the supreme court can just make up things that aren't even in the constitution and pretend that they are. See Griswold v. Connecticut.
Justice Douglas opined with a straight face, and I quote:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
No one knows if he was drunk or high. Granted, what he made up out of thin air in that case favored the rights of the people, but it could just as easily have been the other way round.
Now, I said that there is no recourse against the supreme court making stuff up. Actually there is one but it is never used because the whole rotten federal government is in the bag. Nevertheless, if it wishes, the house can impeach a rogue justice, the senate can hold a trial, and on being found guilty, the justice is removed from his lofty lifelong tenure at once and HE has no recourse against THAT decision.
if the SCOTUS ruling concurs with this one, what are you, poor devils of American citizens that you are, going to do then
Well, you are presuming future events which haven't occurred yet, but to answer your question, corrupt dickheads in the supreme court can be impeached by the house and tried by the senate, with immediate removal from office without appeal the penalty following conviction. Look, I know I'm running the risk of being laughed out of the room for even suggesting this, but after all, it is the next step.
There is also further amendment of the constitution possible. If the justices are too stupid to read and comprehend english, or tyrannical enough to make up things that are not in the constitution, we can try making the point even more explicit.
If all that fails, and the offense outrageous enough, there is the usual remedy to tyranny. The one this country was born with.
Slashdot Mirror
Died in support of a STUPID, FOREDOOMED policy. And just as disturbingly, a lot of foreign nationals died as well in the SUPPORT of that shit, as well as the enormous number you mention in opposition. There were non-US-citizens serving in the US armed forces including on the battlefield, locals co-opted into serving in allied services, acting as informers, and so on and so on.
CentOS, which is COMPLETELY legal and above board, has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with counterfeit Windows products.
CentOS:
1) Violates NO copyrights
2) Is not passing itself off as something else
3) Has never been treated by Redhat as anything but completely welcome.
4) Is produced by completely building from (libre!) source, not disk copying the install media.
5) Is careful to remove Redhat branding where trademarks are involved.
Jim Whitehurst never uttered the silly parallel as far as I can see, nor implied it. He just made the obvious point that CentOS does not hurt Redhat but may well help it.
BWAHAHAHA. Riiiiiiight.
Nobody said it was abusing or overutilizing. Body said it was utilizing more bandwidth. Why do you think they charge by the litre for motor fuel? They could just charge by the fillup, right? It is the absurdity of a flat monthly rate for internet connection that is the issue. The end-user pipes have become so gigantic that if everybody started running the water continuously at max rate, the general water pressure would fall to practically zero.
Er, obviously that is backwards. It is actually 5 down 1 up.
Shot with battleships guns? 16" guns like BB-61 Iowa? Jeeze, those 2700 pound shells are enough to ruin your day.
There is nothing wrong with your comment. Yes, at one point the grammar was slightly confused, but it was crystal clear. And made a good point. Unlike our anonymous putz.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the logic or not. When you make your own Ubuntu derivative, you are welcome to irrationally base it on a target that moves every six months and gives you only a couple of months to re-base every time it moves.
They do because they can. There is no IQ test or basic knowledge test or conflict of interest screening as a prerequisite for the right to vote. (Hell, parenthetically, you don't even have to be a citizen!). Are you really surprised that this pandering, megalomaniac creature is able to hood winkstupid people, ignorant people, and people dependent on government largesse?
It would be nice to believe our problem is lack of prescience on the part of the founders, leading to a failure of the system to forestall evil, illiterate, stupid supreme court justices.
But it isn't. The problem is supreme court justices (and politicians) who see the constitution as simply a bothersome obstacle, consider that they know better what the best governing principles are for the country than a bunch of long dead white guys of European heritage. There is also an extremely large contribution to decay of rights due to corruption.
Having said that, my impulse is also to impugn the ability of the founders to foresee the mechanisms of decay, but on reflection that is not fair. No one of that era could have foreseen the astonishing loss by the people of resolution and interest in their own rights.
“A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin 'Well Doctor what have we got; a republic or a monarchy?'. 'A republic', replied the Doctor, 'if you can keep it.'”
-- notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the constitutional convention.
Where is our Patrick Henry now?
13.04 is only supported for NINE MONTHS. 12.04 is long term support, and is supported until 2017. 13.04 introduces the new policy of only 9 months support instead of 18 for non-LTS releases. It makes them pretty much nothing more than toys.
Nobody in their right mind would base anything on any Ubuntu releases except for the LTS releases.
Does that tell you anything about him?
You are joking, right? No one has to prove that your data will end up in the NSA. It's nothing more nor less than a wise assumption. They have the motive, means, and opportunity. And the force of authority. The man with any wisdom whatsoever assumes the NSA (and potentially many others, independently) potentially knows every bit of data which he has ever reduced to concrete form: speech, writing, computer files. If the only form a piece of concrete data has is competently encrypted, then that is a measure of protection, but think about it. The encrypted data has to exist in free form before it is encrypted, and if it is transmitted to anyone else on purpose (except for backup), then the only possible reason is so that he can decrypt and view it. There you go, it's in free form again, subject to NSA snooping. The only completely safe form of "data" is your own private thoughts which you disclose to no one.
And you can't prove the NSA will NOT get any given piece of data, either. You can't prove a negative.
Morons. One more reason not to drive in the stupid people's republic. Jesus.
SSHDs as implemented by Seagate do not require any support whatsoever in the host. Their caching algorithm does not care anything about the FS. It is block level. I have one working just fine in arch linux. Linux just sees it as any other HD, only it is much faster overall. Obviously you will never see any improvement at all in huge file copies.
WD has some lame Windows-only SSHD tech that does require special software on the host.
Jesus. Anybody who thought that was an insult has a skin thickness measured in nanometers and could never cope with the conversation of English gentlemen.. It was a simple observation.
Spectacular case of "if the shoe fits" though.
You know, you saying that does not make it so. Cite the case law or stop spreading misinformation.
There's no polite way to say this. That statement is ignorant. First of all, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, not 64, but that is beside the point because 50 knots is a fantasy. The fastest carriers can reach 30 knots (34.5 mph) or slightly over. Which is fine, because they would be equally sitting ducks at twice the speed.
Two lousy CIWS are child's play to defeat even with a swarm of ancient subsonic Exocets timed to arrive simultaneously, let alone supersonic diving anti-ship missiles such as the mach 2.5 P-800 Oniks with 300 kg warhead or the mach 1.6-2.5 Granit with gigantic 750 kg warhead. If that's not enough, India has or will soon have the mach 2.8-3.0 Brahmos with 2-300 kg warhead, launchable from land, sea or air. And they are working on the mach 7 Brahmos-II.
China has the mach 10 DF-21D ship killer ballistic missile, which ranges 3000 km from land. The United States Naval Institute says that even the conventional warhead would be enough to destroy a large carrier with a single hit and that there is currently no defense against it.
All of these have a range in the hundreds to thousands of km. It would take a carrier several hours to more than one day to travel out of range, but the missiles only need several minutes.
No, they are not soldiers, and yes, absolutely it's about intimidation. They are organized thugs playing Nazi dress-up. And they don't have to bother demanding your "papersss" because they already have everybody in their database.
These thugs wouldn't last five minutes in a real battle. All their confrontations are at 1000:1 advantage in their favor. Real soldiers don't bother with intimidation, and will engage with or without the advantage in their favor.
But it's really smart to just roll over and give up, eh, o spineless one? I tell you the recourses that are available, that were provided you by wise and dedicated men, and your response is to ridicule the idea that they might be used. You can take that attitude and shove it. Most people in the world would be glad to have some of those recourses you spit on.
What makes you so sure that the same fucking stupid voters who favor liars, scum and low lifes magically do not favor what those dickheads create? It would be nice to believe that the voters' only failing is that they cannot get a grasp on the quality and values of their representatives, but somehow I very much doubt that is the only failing the voters have.
A true direct democracy where the preferences of retards, idiots, zealots, uneducated and crazy people carry just as much weight as those of wise people would be hell on earth. What do you think would happen if there was direct democracy in Afghanistan?
I already think in principle there should be an IQ test as a prerequisite to voting in our representative democracy, but I hasten to qualify with "in principle", because in reality the test would just be subverted to further take the people's rights away.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Thank you, Martin Niemöller. It works just as well if you fill in the categories with today's boogeymen instead of yesterday's.
Hell no. The supreme court can just rule any law they don't like unconstitutional and there is no recourse. The law is instantly voided. Furthermore the supreme court can just make up things that aren't even in the constitution and pretend that they are. See Griswold v. Connecticut.
Justice Douglas opined with a straight face, and I quote:
No one knows if he was drunk or high. Granted, what he made up out of thin air in that case favored the rights of the people, but it could just as easily have been the other way round.
Now, I said that there is no recourse against the supreme court making stuff up. Actually there is one but it is never used because the whole rotten federal government is in the bag. Nevertheless, if it wishes, the house can impeach a rogue justice, the senate can hold a trial, and on being found guilty, the justice is removed from his lofty lifelong tenure at once and HE has no recourse against THAT decision.
Well, you are presuming future events which haven't occurred yet, but to answer your question, corrupt dickheads in the supreme court can be impeached by the house and tried by the senate, with immediate removal from office without appeal the penalty following conviction. Look, I know I'm running the risk of being laughed out of the room for even suggesting this, but after all, it is the next step.
There is also further amendment of the constitution possible. If the justices are too stupid to read and comprehend english, or tyrannical enough to make up things that are not in the constitution, we can try making the point even more explicit.
If all that fails, and the offense outrageous enough, there is the usual remedy to tyranny. The one this country was born with.