In all good nature, you're funny, kid. I was 65 a year and a half years ago. Guess I don't know how to participate in slashdot. Or build my own desktop, build and operate my own server, or write embedded computer software either, for that matter.
You might have mentioned that your two examples are in no way comparable. Reaper: max speed 482 km/h, cruise 313 km/h, max payload 1700 kg F-18: max speed 1915 km/h, max payload 8050 kg
One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none. One is very highly maneuverable, the other is a truck to carry cameras and guided air-to-surface munitions to where they are needed.
Make them anywhere near comparable in capability and there is not going to be much cost difference in the development and construction. OTOH, to be fair, the real cost saving is the enormous advantage in not having to train and maintain proficiency of on-board pilots. Forget the rest of the argument. At best, it has yet to be born out by fact, and at worst it is a bunch of fanciful and wishful thinking.
Crank away on that points-equipped car -- the ignition coil will be fried, and so will the copper windings in the starter and altern/generator.
There were no solid-state chips then, and, still, unconnected telegraph receivers were tapping away receiving imaginary messages from the ZOMG to earth.
Think. I know it's hard, but try it. We're not talking about magic here. The car does not have an antenna hundreds of km to over a thousand km long. Electric fields are measured in volts per meter, not volts per fairy tale.
Inducing a 20 mA current in a telegraph line hundreds of km long (which is all it takes to "tap away") is slightly different from inducing tens to hundreds of thousands of amps for tens of seconds to minutes. That's what it would take to "fry" the windings in a starter or alternator. And the antenna length of the wiring attached to the starter or alternator is no more than a couple of meters, INSIDE a faraday cage.
An ignition coil would take less current to burn out than a starter or alternator, but still a whole hell of a lot more current than it would ever see inside the faraday cage of the car body.
Anything electric will not work properly. Points ignition is like technologically similar to the telegraph system that failed in 1859.
A car ignition system does not have an antenna hundreds of km to over a thousand km long. Neither does a cellphone or laptop or your brain for that matter.
MY car will not have this feature. Not until hell freezes over and there is no way to own and drive a car without it. A lot, or even maybe all, new cars may have it, but NOT MY car.
Red Hat can't get the stability and/or performance out of it - they are going with XFS.
Quite possibly Red Hat intends to GA RHEL7 before November and it doesn't give them as much time for testing as OpenSuse has. Other than the simple fact that RHEL and Suse are enterprise, and OpenSuse is not.
I sure as hell won't be using Btrfs for any data I care about in the foreseeable future (not through 2015 at least). I consider Zfs On Linux to be much more reliable and well-tested as well as far superior.
This is nitpicking, but if your admin credentials get stolen, somebody is exploting a security weakness. Not a design weakness, maybe, but an operating weakness. It's still a security weakness.
Da Google am confused? Your search -ÂÂssh -G 2>&1 | grep -e illegal -e unknown >Â/dev/null && echo âoeSystem cleanâ || echo âoeSystem...Â- did not match any documents. It am hacked???!!!
Pretty hard to say, the way you butchered the command.
Sorry, it's not splitting hairs. A treaty involves guarantees. The memorandum of security assurances does not involve security guarantees. From your own citation, it "... refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention." The signatories simply declare they will "Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine."
Realpolitik aside, after the breakup of the unlamented USSR, Ukraine is after all a sovereign nation. And in 1992, Russia, the US and the UK agreed that, in return for Ukraine handing over its nukes to Russia, the signatories would refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Psst, there never were any missiles "pointed at Russia" installed in Poland. There was an extremely nominal force of DEFENSIVE missiles intended as a shield against the insane leaders of Iran threatening Europe and the US with nuclear missiles.
Pretty much the entire world is laughing at the absurd bluster of the US and EU in this matter. They certainly are not "picking a fight" in any real sense. They are just making a comical noise.
So I think it's happening, what you and I want to happen vis-a-vis policeman of the world. I would say it's actually been mostly keystone kops of the world, except characterizing it thus seems insensitive to a lot of dead victims.
The Spetsnaz like to think they are an elite on the same order as the British SAS, the German KSK, and the US Seals and Delta Force. I am not so sure they are even anywhere near comparable.
No country knows what "it wants" because all countries are made up of many individuals, and individuals have a rich mix of viewpoints, and change radically over the course of their lives.
The U.S. voted for Reagan twice, Reagan's VP once, then turned around and voted for Clinton twice and then impeached Clinton. Then another ostensible conservative twice, followed by a radical socialist twice. It used to be a failed fool of a president like Carter got ignominiously tossed out ASAP, but for the last generation, even failed presidents cannot be dislodged except by term limits.
The U.S. had the strongest industry the world has ever seen and then just threw it all away. It has frittered away the strongest military the world has ever seen, repeatedly trying to protect castles of sand from the irresistable waves, until now the manpower is on the verge of being reduced to the absurdly low level of 1940. It has turned its people's vast farm resources into a corporate chemical wasteland with produce void of nutritive value.
My ass. The west couldn't squash shit with sanctions. Europe can only get through a winter without large parts of the population freezing to death because of Russian natural gas.
Are you high? That exchange doesn't show hindsight. It shows foresight and understanding by Romney, and vapid ignorance by the current occupier of the White Hut.
Putin made a monkey out of the Stupid Regime twice. Once in Syria and now again in Crimea.
Having said that, Crimea has basically been a colony of Russia for many decades. It's how the Russians worked under the USSR. They basically colonized far and wide. It's quite predictable that a Russian colony feels like part of Russia. I can't imagine what anyone thinks a bunch of busybodies in the west could possibly do about the fait accompli, or why Russia would pay any mind to the pointless bluster of the west over the past week or two.
It's pretty hard to be cheery about competent thugs in the Kremlin having Russia by the balls, and INcompetent thugs in DC having the US by the balls. But which ones are feared more by the people of the world, and by the poor saps living in the US? The White Hut brand of thuggery, by far. Putin protected his own ethnic brothers against real danger from Kiev. 0bama almost wreacked added pointless hell on the people alreay undergoing hell in Syria, where he had absolutely no business sticking his nose in, but both Syria's and the US' bacon was saved by - Putin!
Now if Putin builds on his empire by marching into Ukraine with guns blazing, that will be different, but there is no real precedent for predicting that.
Let's get one thing straight. I am giving the detractors a pass on the term "hero", but that doesn't mean Snowden is not an admirable and highly effective actor in the current play of tyranny against human rights, and there are sure damn few of those.
I am already kind of regretting paying too much attention to what Wikipedia calls "the will for self sacrifice" as a determinant for who deserves the term "hero". The Greek root for hero means "protector" or "defender".
The best example I can think of for true misuse of "hero" is the pilot of a jetliner whose skill saves the occupants of a jetliner in a ditching or crash landing. That pilot is saving HIMSELF as well as everybody else on the plane. The lives of those other occupants have absolutely zero bearing on what he must do.
I was going to make a reply along those lines; that such are the attitudes that enable tyrannies, but on reflection I reconsidered. It is my belief that AC was driving in a different direction. I believe AC was indicating that governments sometimes have a case to make that one of their prime directives (defense of the nation) may lead them on occasion to skirt legalities. Please note, I am not saying the defense justifies the action in any particular case. I am saying what I believe AC was driving at: the NSA, and the present tyranny, has gone way beyond the point where they can even make that defense with a straight face.
Just to clarify, the constitution is not something to be honored only when convenient. The constitution, underlaid as it is by human rights, does not say whatever the NSA or congress or the president decides it says. It does not even say what the supreme court decides it says. It says what it says. I really mean that. The supreme court is an instrumentality of the constitution, not the reverse. When the supreme court says "the constitution really means X when it says Y", or "it really means Z but it just forgot to say Z", it has gone rogue - the former, since the latter by definition cannot go rogue.
The founders never intended that the integrity of the constitution rely on the supreme court, nor does the constitution say that it does. The only ones who can fix the tyranny uncovered by Snowden and others are the people. The people are the ones who have to fix a presidential institution and congressional institution and judicial institution gone rogue. The constitution is the people's champion and guide, but the supreme court is not a police force they can call up to fix things. Only by asserting their rights and voting with their rights uppermost in their mind can they fix things.
An interesting intellectual point. I take it you think "owning up" to asserting your rights and turning yourself in to a tyrant's forces is more somehow more heroic than doing your level best to expose and undermine the tyrant. That may be true by the definition of "hero", but I believe value to good is more important than pointless self sacrifice.
I would categorically disagree in the strongest possible terms - i.e., vehemently - with your premise that "if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place". Yes, there is a need for heroes, but asserting one's rights - the rights of the people - should not require every individual to be a hero.
Actually Snowden took a big risk on behalf of championing the rights of the people: the risk that he would be persecuted by a tyranny for the actions he took. Can you say the same? I am not willing to make the claim on my own behalf, so I have a damn high threshold for calling those who stick their necks out for me and my brothers "unheroic".
Slashdot Mirror
In all good nature, you're funny, kid. I was 65 a year and a half years ago. Guess I don't know how to participate in slashdot. Or build my own desktop, build and operate my own server, or write embedded computer software either, for that matter.
You might have mentioned that your two examples are in no way comparable.
Reaper: max speed 482 km/h, cruise 313 km/h, max payload 1700 kg
F-18: max speed 1915 km/h, max payload 8050 kg
One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none. One is very highly maneuverable, the other is a truck to carry cameras and guided air-to-surface munitions to where they are needed.
Make them anywhere near comparable in capability and there is not going to be much cost difference in the development and construction. OTOH, to be fair, the real cost saving is the enormous advantage in not having to train and maintain proficiency of on-board pilots. Forget the rest of the argument. At best, it has yet to be born out by fact, and at worst it is a bunch of fanciful and wishful thinking.
You insensitive clod! You just blabbed my password. Now I'll have to change it to capacitor mule wrong nail.
Oh wait ...
Think. I know it's hard, but try it. We're not talking about magic here. The car does not have an antenna hundreds of km to over a thousand km long. Electric fields are measured in volts per meter, not volts per fairy tale.
Inducing a 20 mA current in a telegraph line hundreds of km long (which is all it takes to "tap away") is slightly different from inducing tens to hundreds of thousands of amps for tens of seconds to minutes. That's what it would take to "fry" the windings in a starter or alternator. And the antenna length of the wiring attached to the starter or alternator is no more than a couple of meters, INSIDE a faraday cage.
An ignition coil would take less current to burn out than a starter or alternator, but still a whole hell of a lot more current than it would ever see inside the faraday cage of the car body.
A car ignition system does not have an antenna hundreds of km to over a thousand km long. Neither does a cellphone or laptop or your brain for that matter.
So sue my dead body, authoritarian tool.
MY car will not have this feature. Not until hell freezes over and there is no way to own and drive a car without it. A lot, or even maybe all, new cars may have it, but NOT MY car.
Quite possibly Red Hat intends to GA RHEL7 before November and it doesn't give them as much time for testing as OpenSuse has. Other than the simple fact that RHEL and Suse are enterprise, and OpenSuse is not.
I sure as hell won't be using Btrfs for any data I care about in the foreseeable future (not through 2015 at least). I consider Zfs On Linux to be much more reliable and well-tested as well as far superior.
This is nitpicking, but if your admin credentials get stolen, somebody is exploting a security weakness. Not a design weakness, maybe, but an operating weakness. It's still a security weakness.
Pretty hard to say, the way you butchered the command.
I presume you are using csh or tcsh? The shell that should have been burned and the ashes scattered the day Bill Joy finished it.
You can do this: /dev/null && echo "System clean" || echo "System infectrf"'
sh -c 'ssh -G 2>&1 | grep -e illegal -e unknown >
Sorry, it's not splitting hairs. A treaty involves guarantees. The memorandum of security assurances does not involve security guarantees. From your own citation, it "... refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention." The signatories simply declare they will "Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine."
What treaty? There is a memorandum of understanding with no guarantees.
Realpolitik aside, after the breakup of the unlamented USSR, Ukraine is after all a sovereign nation. And in 1992, Russia, the US and the UK agreed that, in return for Ukraine handing over its nukes to Russia, the signatories would refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Psst, there never were any missiles "pointed at Russia" installed in Poland. There was an extremely nominal force of DEFENSIVE missiles intended as a shield against the insane leaders of Iran threatening Europe and the US with nuclear missiles.
Snort. A BMD-2 or BMD-3 is nothing but a good target for RPGs or IEDs.
They are like Bradleys. Bradleys have their place in a proper mix, but without support from Abrams they are just deathtraps.
Pretty much the entire world is laughing at the absurd bluster of the US and EU in this matter. They certainly are not "picking a fight" in any real sense. They are just making a comical noise.
So I think it's happening, what you and I want to happen vis-a-vis policeman of the world. I would say it's actually been mostly keystone kops of the world, except characterizing it thus seems insensitive to a lot of dead victims.
Not comparable. Crimea is populated by Russians and wants to be part of Russia. Alaska, not so much.
The Spetsnaz like to think they are an elite on the same order as the British SAS, the German KSK, and the US Seals and Delta Force. I am not so sure they are even anywhere near comparable.
No country knows what "it wants" because all countries are made up of many individuals, and individuals have a rich mix of viewpoints, and change radically over the course of their lives.
The U.S. voted for Reagan twice, Reagan's VP once, then turned around and voted for Clinton twice and then impeached Clinton. Then another ostensible conservative twice, followed by a radical socialist twice. It used to be a failed fool of a president like Carter got ignominiously tossed out ASAP, but for the last generation, even failed presidents cannot be dislodged except by term limits.
The U.S. had the strongest industry the world has ever seen and then just threw it all away. It has frittered away the strongest military the world has ever seen, repeatedly trying to protect castles of sand from the irresistable waves, until now the manpower is on the verge of being reduced to the absurdly low level of 1940. It has turned its people's vast farm resources into a corporate chemical wasteland with produce void of nutritive value.
My ass. The west couldn't squash shit with sanctions. Europe can only get through a winter without large parts of the population freezing to death because of Russian natural gas.
Are you high? That exchange doesn't show hindsight. It shows foresight and understanding by Romney, and vapid ignorance by the current occupier of the White Hut.
Putin made a monkey out of the Stupid Regime twice. Once in Syria and now again in Crimea.
Having said that, Crimea has basically been a colony of Russia for many decades. It's how the Russians worked under the USSR. They basically colonized far and wide. It's quite predictable that a Russian colony feels like part of Russia. I can't imagine what anyone thinks a bunch of busybodies in the west could possibly do about the fait accompli, or why Russia would pay any mind to the pointless bluster of the west over the past week or two.
It's pretty hard to be cheery about competent thugs in the Kremlin having Russia by the balls, and INcompetent thugs in DC having the US by the balls. But which ones are feared more by the people of the world, and by the poor saps living in the US? The White Hut brand of thuggery, by far. Putin protected his own ethnic brothers against real danger from Kiev. 0bama almost wreacked added pointless hell on the people alreay undergoing hell in Syria, where he had absolutely no business sticking his nose in, but both Syria's and the US' bacon was saved by - Putin!
Now if Putin builds on his empire by marching into Ukraine with guns blazing, that will be different, but there is no real precedent for predicting that.
Let's get one thing straight. I am giving the detractors a pass on the term "hero", but that doesn't mean Snowden is not an admirable and highly effective actor in the current play of tyranny against human rights, and there are sure damn few of those.
I am already kind of regretting paying too much attention to what Wikipedia calls "the will for self sacrifice" as a determinant for who deserves the term "hero". The Greek root for hero means "protector" or "defender".
The best example I can think of for true misuse of "hero" is the pilot of a jetliner whose skill saves the occupants of a jetliner in a ditching or crash landing. That pilot is saving HIMSELF as well as everybody else on the plane. The lives of those other occupants have absolutely zero bearing on what he must do.
I was going to make a reply along those lines; that such are the attitudes that enable tyrannies, but on reflection I reconsidered. It is my belief that AC was driving in a different direction. I believe AC was indicating that governments sometimes have a case to make that one of their prime directives (defense of the nation) may lead them on occasion to skirt legalities. Please note, I am not saying the defense justifies the action in any particular case. I am saying what I believe AC was driving at: the NSA, and the present tyranny, has gone way beyond the point where they can even make that defense with a straight face.
Just to clarify, the constitution is not something to be honored only when convenient. The constitution, underlaid as it is by human rights, does not say whatever the NSA or congress or the president decides it says. It does not even say what the supreme court decides it says. It says what it says. I really mean that. The supreme court is an instrumentality of the constitution, not the reverse. When the supreme court says "the constitution really means X when it says Y", or "it really means Z but it just forgot to say Z", it has gone rogue - the former, since the latter by definition cannot go rogue.
The founders never intended that the integrity of the constitution rely on the supreme court, nor does the constitution say that it does. The only ones who can fix the tyranny uncovered by Snowden and others are the people. The people are the ones who have to fix a presidential institution and congressional institution and judicial institution gone rogue. The constitution is the people's champion and guide, but the supreme court is not a police force they can call up to fix things. Only by asserting their rights and voting with their rights uppermost in their mind can they fix things.
An interesting intellectual point. I take it you think "owning up" to asserting your rights and turning yourself in to a tyrant's forces is more somehow more heroic than doing your level best to expose and undermine the tyrant. That may be true by the definition of "hero", but I believe value to good is more important than pointless self sacrifice.
I would categorically disagree in the strongest possible terms - i.e., vehemently - with your premise that "if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place". Yes, there is a need for heroes, but asserting one's rights - the rights of the people - should not require every individual to be a hero.
Actually Snowden took a big risk on behalf of championing the rights of the people: the risk that he would be persecuted by a tyranny for the actions he took. Can you say the same? I am not willing to make the claim on my own behalf, so I have a damn high threshold for calling those who stick their necks out for me and my brothers "unheroic".
I'll go further than that. I'll say it is an integer between -1 and +1.