Ironically the Republicans offer the revolutionary and freaky program and democrats are conservative and modest.
I would like to see an intelligent, conservative right wing politician. But all you find is lies, stupidity and insults of the old crank. Obama plays moderate and so far did not make a single mistake.
It is not about Left or Right. It is freaks vs. conservatives.
Palin is protected by her understatement. She uses it for bullying. You cannot attack her because that would make her a victim and she makes you appear rude.
I mean look at her statements. I mean for instance when she talks about her son beeing deployed in Iraq. Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda? She wants to get into a leadership position and talks herd. That is frigthening.
Am I arogant and elitist to talk like this. Sure, I am. You see how it works and results in adverse selection.
Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.
Lessons:
* government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)
* Anonymous communication matters
* Activities of governments should be transparent.
* It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters.
Will code be available under Affero license? Take it positive, it is a competition for the community and if you don't offer the right licensing conditions, bad luck.
Maybe he was but the BRD only started in 1947. Before the military occupation did not work very well and people just wanted to start to get things going again. Adenauer was an old man with a pre-war political career. The main advantage was that the whole political class learned its lessons and the extremists were wiped out. They started from zero. It was that post-Endsieg scenerio. People were tired with revolutionary politics and wanted to get things running again. Adenauer had this strong catholic conservative bias. Other politicians like his old opponent social democrat Otto Braun wanted to get Prussia back which was a stronghold of protestantism. Unfortunately the Americans resolved Prussia. But the tradition for which Prussian social democracy stood for, and its bias against authoritarian rule, was adopted by the conservatives. The overall social situation forced politicians to solve problems. And under the Soviets things went much worse. No experiments. You had a political class that had an experience of prosecution and no surprise they were progressive on civil liberties and rule of law. Basically what post-war Germany helped was the total surrender, the whole game was played by the nazis till the very end. As a contrast after WWI it was anarchy and civil war.
Another reason why it was irrational to oppose the occupation was that the occupation was the lesser evil as opposed to the Soviet (Stalin!) occupation. Note that the Soviets troups expelled millions of people from their land in Eastern Prussia, Pommern and Schlesien and drove them west. Also the Russian troups raped women on a large scale. The Americans just appeared to be the guys to go with.
In Afganistan there was quite a chance because the taliban installed a terror regime. Same in Iraq but there the brutal dictator kept the different tribes in check. Americans were told there were "the Iraqi people". Their whole campaign was a bit autistic. And then they find out, oh, there are different tribes and groups which hate each other, how could we know. The learning curve of the American public was horrible to watch.
A president has just 24h. What matters is his team. I got the impression that vice-presidents are just symbolic. Who does really pull the strings? I find it frightening to find all these corporate lobbyists as part of McCain's team. Because I know them and what they did in real political struggles which are below the radar of the elections circus.
We can only hope a nation like Germany will grow the balls to send it's troops to the much tougher combat areas
The problem is constitutional and cultural. In Germany is a crime to prepare an agression war while the Bush doctrine explicitly permits that. Don't expect Germans to consent with attacks on sovereign nations as Pakistan which by the way has an atom bomb, so it makes sense to care a bit more about public opinion in these states and the stability of the regime.
The United States government finds it appropriate to apply torture techniques to insurgents while it is off the radar in Europe. And of course you openly question if its illigitimate to fight a foreign military occupation and their puppet regime. Where does terrorism start and where does the national freedom fighter come in? It is a matter of perspective. Note that it is a civil war scenario. Everyone knows that Bremer's decision to resolve the republican guard made the Iraq situation possible.
Further you can raise the question if the insurgency in the areas under American control is not a violent response to their cultural insensivity. Use of force is natural in a war scenario but in a nation with blood revenge family members of yesterday's collateral damages tend to take it personal. I don't really know why...
What I do know is that the nazis invented the secret weapon endsieg propaganda. So the same scheme from the Americans in the context of an election campaign sounds frightening...
I mean, no one wants the Americans to lose. It is more like Gates-Seinfeld. You feel compassion for them.
It is so confusing that you get people to analyse it. And the analysis does not look very favourable. So maybe we should get used to the autism of Microsoft's customer relations.
People find out that someone might have gotten the key code and thus change the code. Techie cries: "Oh, the door is insecure." In fact the door was not as safe as was expected. But you always need to consider the larger perspective.
Generally speaking more security does not harmm it makes it more difficult to intrude. Absolute security is impossible.
When you have a security system it is important that you detect vulnerabilities and resolve them. Most of the time vulnerabilities are about what could have happened.
That is clearly better than leaving vulnerabilities unresolved and create a market place for extra guardiansm I just say "antivir".
I spoke of a privacy church. This is exactly the problem of the Pharisee. He believes in the rules and forgets about their purpose. For many humans it seems to be either-or. People want religious rules to be strict and sacrosanct even when they break them.
The role of security is in short to prevent shit from happening. When you have a security to protect a person sometimes incidents happen. One time its a pie in the face the other day a man with a gun. Security means to reduce the probability of such actions or activities. This is a weak concept. When you detect a vulnerability in your steel door lock and the money in the safe you can simply resolve the problem and change the key.
I cannot judge about American audiences but I guess the ad does not work in some nations. It only works in nations where you tend to solidarise with the "upper class".
So why exactly does the ad present Gates and Seinfeld as rude?
It also shows the non-perfection of family life. Your pool does not get warm, so why complain about Vista.
But what astonishes me is the unfriendliness towards the family set in scene that offered them a meal according to what they considered appropriate for the visitors. In some cultures including my own this is regarded as an severe insult on the host. Just think of the impolite answer of Gates towards the dad. And they even order junk food from external sources beeing visitors in a house.
In traditional civilizations hospitality traditions can cause strong problems for the guest but you need to keep face. E.g. when they slaughter a goase for you... Hospitality is sacrocanct.
This is partly compensated by the stupid girl that does not respect the rules of hospitality either. But who wants to offer hospitality to persons that disrespect hospitality?
So the emotional attachment here is: Gates and Seinfeld don't belong into an ordinary family and are unable to interact with customers of Microsoft products?
That is no joke, that is the message they spread and it adds the asshole notion: You know we are special and we cannot become a part of your family, sorry, we are like that. Who thinks otherwise is a fool.
He may as well be saying, "Hey, I'm not perfect, but I'm kind of nice and fun and even helpful, so invite me into your home."
The messages says, we tried but it cannot work, look how silly it would get. We are fools and you are fools, get over it.
Nice try. The problem with Techies is that they don't get the larger picture. They focus on the blinking red herrings they are so used to and where they believe in.
We are talking about a serious flaw of a security model. True. But consider that most people run operating systems where executables are not signed at all.
There is no indication here at all that anyone externally found out about the problem before. It is basically that you found out that what you did over the last two years was vulnerable to potential attacks. How will it affect the future? Not at all, as the issue gets fixed.
Ah, and right now no one unauthorised actually has the key yet. It is only technically possible to crack it much easier...
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically the Republicans offer the revolutionary and freaky program and democrats are conservative and modest.
I would like to see an intelligent, conservative right wing politician. But all you find is lies, stupidity and insults of the old crank. Obama plays moderate and so far did not make a single mistake.
It is not about Left or Right. It is freaks vs. conservatives.
Palin is protected by her understatement. She uses it for bullying. You cannot attack her because that would make her a victim and she makes you appear rude.
I mean look at her statements. I mean for instance when she talks about her son beeing deployed in Iraq. Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda? She wants to get into a leadership position and talks herd. That is frigthening.
Am I arogant and elitist to talk like this. Sure, I am. You see how it works and results in adverse selection.
She talks trash. Some speak out but she can surf on her underdog routine. Attack her and it strengthens her underdog routine.
Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.
Lessons:
* government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)
* Anonymous communication matters
* Activities of governments should be transparent.
* It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters.
No, you can't. It is about anti-competitive pratices.
Why don't you just contact your national antitrust department? E.g. in Europe we have a simple consumer form.
Despite all the Apple hype their platform is the most proprietary. A golden cage.
ACTA is TRIPs+. Who wants to understand what it is really about should read the Susta draft report of the European Parliament Trade Committee.
Brilliant plan...
That is the so called New Coke cover-up.
They crossed the line.
Will code be available under Affero license? Take it positive, it is a competition for the community and if you don't offer the right licensing conditions, bad luck.
Maybe he was but the BRD only started in 1947. Before the military occupation did not work very well and people just wanted to start to get things going again. Adenauer was an old man with a pre-war political career. The main advantage was that the whole political class learned its lessons and the extremists were wiped out. They started from zero. It was that post-Endsieg scenerio. People were tired with revolutionary politics and wanted to get things running again. Adenauer had this strong catholic conservative bias. Other politicians like his old opponent social democrat Otto Braun wanted to get Prussia back which was a stronghold of protestantism. Unfortunately the Americans resolved Prussia. But the tradition for which Prussian social democracy stood for, and its bias against authoritarian rule, was adopted by the conservatives. The overall social situation forced politicians to solve problems. And under the Soviets things went much worse. No experiments. You had a political class that had an experience of prosecution and no surprise they were progressive on civil liberties and rule of law. Basically what post-war Germany helped was the total surrender, the whole game was played by the nazis till the very end. As a contrast after WWI it was anarchy and civil war.
Another reason why it was irrational to oppose the occupation was that the occupation was the lesser evil as opposed to the Soviet (Stalin!) occupation. Note that the Soviets troups expelled millions of people from their land in Eastern Prussia, Pommern and Schlesien and drove them west. Also the Russian troups raped women on a large scale. The Americans just appeared to be the guys to go with.
In Afganistan there was quite a chance because the taliban installed a terror regime. Same in Iraq but there the brutal dictator kept the different tribes in check. Americans were told there were "the Iraqi people". Their whole campaign was a bit autistic. And then they find out, oh, there are different tribes and groups which hate each other, how could we know. The learning curve of the American public was horrible to watch.
A president has just 24h. What matters is his team. I got the impression that vice-presidents are just symbolic. Who does really pull the strings? I find it frightening to find all these corporate lobbyists as part of McCain's team. Because I know them and what they did in real political struggles which are below the radar of the elections circus.
Same for copyright and patent law. A lesser evil somewhere in the cloud?
That is not true.
We can only hope a nation like Germany will grow the balls to send it's troops to the much tougher combat areas
The problem is constitutional and cultural. In Germany is a crime to prepare an agression war while the Bush doctrine explicitly permits that. Don't expect Germans to consent with attacks on sovereign nations as Pakistan which by the way has an atom bomb, so it makes sense to care a bit more about public opinion in these states and the stability of the regime.
The United States government finds it appropriate to apply torture techniques to insurgents while it is off the radar in Europe. And of course you openly question if its illigitimate to fight a foreign military occupation and their puppet regime. Where does terrorism start and where does the national freedom fighter come in? It is a matter of perspective. Note that it is a civil war scenario. Everyone knows that Bremer's decision to resolve the republican guard made the Iraq situation possible.
Further you can raise the question if the insurgency in the areas under American control is not a violent response to their cultural insensivity. Use of force is natural in a war scenario but in a nation with blood revenge family members of yesterday's collateral damages tend to take it personal. I don't really know why...
What I do know is that the nazis invented the secret weapon endsieg propaganda. So the same scheme from the Americans in the context of an election campaign sounds frightening...
I mean, no one wants the Americans to lose. It is more like Gates-Seinfeld. You feel compassion for them.
It is so confusing that you get people to analyse it. And the analysis does not look very favourable. So maybe we should get used to the autism of Microsoft's customer relations.
Yeah, but what else can you do then analyse it, in particular as the message is so hard to get.
Ah, that is interesting.
Security is relative.
You have a amored door set in a tent.
People find out that someone might have gotten the key code and thus change the code. Techie cries: "Oh, the door is insecure." In fact the door was not as safe as was expected. But you always need to consider the larger perspective.
Generally speaking more security does not harmm it makes it more difficult to intrude. Absolute security is impossible.
When you have a security system it is important that you detect vulnerabilities and resolve them. Most of the time vulnerabilities are about what could have happened.
That is clearly better than leaving vulnerabilities unresolved and create a market place for extra guardiansm I just say "antivir".
I spoke of a privacy church. This is exactly the problem of the Pharisee. He believes in the rules and forgets about their purpose. For many humans it seems to be either-or. People want religious rules to be strict and sacrosanct even when they break them.
The role of security is in short to prevent shit from happening. When you have a security to protect a person sometimes incidents happen. One time its a pie in the face the other day a man with a gun. Security means to reduce the probability of such actions or activities. This is a weak concept. When you detect a vulnerability in your steel door lock and the money in the safe you can simply resolve the problem and change the key.
I cannot judge about American audiences but I guess the ad does not work in some nations. It only works in nations where you tend to solidarise with the "upper class".
So why exactly does the ad present Gates and Seinfeld as rude?
It also shows the non-perfection of family life. Your pool does not get warm, so why complain about Vista.
But what astonishes me is the unfriendliness towards the family set in scene that offered them a meal according to what they considered appropriate for the visitors. In some cultures including my own this is regarded as an severe insult on the host. Just think of the impolite answer of Gates towards the dad. And they even order junk food from external sources beeing visitors in a house.
In traditional civilizations hospitality traditions can cause strong problems for the guest but you need to keep face. E.g. when they slaughter a goase for you... Hospitality is sacrocanct.
This is partly compensated by the stupid girl that does not respect the rules of hospitality either. But who wants to offer hospitality to persons that disrespect hospitality?
What is "WHG III"?
So the emotional attachment here is: Gates and Seinfeld don't belong into an ordinary family and are unable to interact with customers of Microsoft products?
That is no joke, that is the message they spread and it adds the asshole notion: You know we are special and we cannot become a part of your family, sorry, we are like that. Who thinks otherwise is a fool.
He may as well be saying, "Hey, I'm not perfect, but I'm kind of nice and fun and even helpful, so invite me into your home."
The messages says, we tried but it cannot work, look how silly it would get. We are fools and you are fools, get over it.
Exactly, vulnerabilities need to get fixed. That is good. I don't see any negative news in the fact that it gets fixed.
So we survived the black holes?
Nice try. The problem with Techies is that they don't get the larger picture. They focus on the blinking red herrings they are so used to and where they believe in.
We are talking about a serious flaw of a security model. True. But consider that most people run operating systems where executables are not signed at all.
There is no indication here at all that anyone externally found out about the problem before. It is basically that you found out that what you did over the last two years was vulnerable to potential attacks. How will it affect the future? Not at all, as the issue gets fixed.
Ah, and right now no one unauthorised actually has the key yet. It is only technically possible to crack it much easier...
The point is that Byfield raises these issues on purposes, he makes them up.