If we didn't have a fleet sitting in Pearl harbor, the Japanese wouldn't have bombed it. So your argument doesn't convince me.
The US and Japan were both seeking imperial possessions. The fact is, we would have been a lot better off without those possessions, and a lot harder to attack. So if we had really stuck to "the idealistic way", it is unlikely it would have failed.
Our present Army has something on the order of 1 or 2 million personnel. What if we instead armed every able-bodied citizen? No foreign invader could seriously defeat a couple hundred million well-armed people with zero-length supply lines and a serious desire to defend their homeland.
You're absolutely right, value is highly subjective. Every person is bound to value things differently.
So who gets to decide? Well, there are at least two parties involved in any trade, the buy/employer and the seller/employee. So they should certainly get some say. If either party doesn't think it's fair, they're free to try to find a better trade elsewhere.
What if some third person decides that the trade isn't "fair." How can this third person influence the situation:
1. Convince one of the traders that they're being ripped off. 2. Violence (or threats thereof), aka Law.
Option 1 is education, and I'm all for it. But option 2 is unacceptable to me. I believe it's never acceptable to use first-strike violence against others.
I can't think of any other options. If anyone else can I'd be interested to hear it.
There's a very simple way to determine what salary is "fair". How much value can you produce per hour? That's a fair salary. Any less and you're being cheated, any more and your employer can't afford you.
The real reason wealth gets concentrated is lack of economic freedom. A highly regulated economy favors the well-connected. A highly free economy (which we in the US *don't* have) favors the most productive.
Depending on your platform, it may be a lot easier to use 802.11b. I've built mobile robots around Ipaqs and Geode single board computers. Since both have pcmcia slots, adding wireless is simple.
The expensive mission plans you speak of were written by people who had every incentive to inflate their own long-term research programs.
In "The Case For Mars", Robert Zubrin describes a serious Mars exploration program that costs $20 billion for development, and $2 billion per mission. That's a very small fraction of our current spending.
How do you know it hasn't been taken advantage of before? There is plenty of incentive for a black hat who discovered such a vulnerability to keep it quiet for his own nefarious purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
It is unreasonable to assume they would already have completed forensic analysis to identify the exploit.
My guess is they'll announce it when they know.
Let me clarify my pronoun: if the US didn't have a fleet in Pearl harbor, there would have been no fleet there to bomb.
The Japanese didn't strike Hawaii because they wanted Hawaii. The struck it beacuse it was full of American battleships.
If we didn't have a fleet sitting in Pearl harbor, the Japanese wouldn't have bombed it. So your argument doesn't convince me.
The US and Japan were both seeking imperial possessions. The fact is, we would have been a lot better off without those possessions, and a lot harder to attack. So if we had really stuck to "the idealistic way", it is unlikely it would have failed.
Our present Army has something on the order of 1 or 2 million personnel. What if we instead armed every able-bodied citizen? No foreign invader could seriously defeat a couple hundred million well-armed people with zero-length supply lines and a serious desire to defend their homeland.
I know of a DEC PDP 11 still in use. It controls some fab machine in one of MIT's student labs. A plasma etcher, I think.
You insert the cartridge for the etch profile you want, and it does its thing.
You're absolutely right, value is highly subjective. Every person is bound to value things differently.
So who gets to decide? Well, there are at least two parties involved in any trade, the buy/employer and the seller/employee. So they should certainly get some say. If either party doesn't think it's fair, they're free to try to find a better trade elsewhere.
What if some third person decides that the trade isn't "fair." How can this third person influence the situation:
1. Convince one of the traders that they're being ripped off.
2. Violence (or threats thereof), aka Law.
Option 1 is education, and I'm all for it. But option 2 is unacceptable to me. I believe it's never acceptable to use first-strike violence against others.
I can't think of any other options. If anyone else can I'd be interested to hear it.
There's a very simple way to determine what salary is "fair". How much value can you produce per hour? That's a fair salary. Any less and you're being cheated, any more and your employer can't afford you.
The real reason wealth gets concentrated is lack of economic freedom. A highly regulated economy favors the well-connected. A highly free economy (which we in the US *don't* have) favors the most productive.
If Linksys refused to release the source to some custom modules, that would not be a violation. But that's not the case here.
They modified the kernel proper, as demonstrated in the letter.
Depending on your platform, it may be a lot easier to use 802.11b. I've built mobile robots around Ipaqs and Geode single board computers. Since both have pcmcia slots, adding wireless is simple.
It appears that 3.7p1 is now in portage, so you can just emerge sync; emerge -u openssh
The expensive mission plans you speak of were written by people who had every incentive to inflate their own long-term research programs.
In "The Case For Mars", Robert Zubrin describes a serious Mars exploration program that costs $20 billion for development, and $2 billion per mission. That's a very small fraction of our current spending.
How do you know it hasn't been taken advantage of before? There is plenty of incentive for a black hat who discovered such a vulnerability to keep it quiet for his own nefarious purposes.