I dunno about a nutter, but someone who desperately wants to convince himself that the Bush fairytale was the truth despite all the evidence to the contrary which outed before, during and since. There are a handful still out there, thankfully they're well away from the big red button.
Lol.. The problem here is that I didn't claim iraq was behind 9/11, I said their actions emboldened Al Qaeda because of the culture in the middle east and Al Qaeda admitted that it thought our response would be meaningless saber rattling instead of a full blown war. If you somehow think that is supporting bush then you have some problems.
Now, I did point to some links to what Bush has said. It seems the big problem there is again, people like you who only take what you want to hear and confound that into something else. Bush and Cheney both said that Iraq and Al Qaeda was working together and had ties. That much is true and verifiable. But you and many like you want to take that to mean Bush and Cheney was saying Iraq was behind 9/11 which is completely wrong. SO pull your head out of your ass and actually pay attention to what is being said and not what you think or want to think is being said.
I do believe Iraq and Al Queda had a connection. One of the people claiming to be part of Al Queda was in Iraq at some point; that's it. Nothing more. By that same strength of conviction almost EVERY country can be linked to Al Queda, including the UK and US.
Read above, the 9/11 report said high level Iraqi officials had meetings with ranking Al Qaeda personnel. They said those meeting didn't link Iraq to 9/11 though.
Sadaam had as much to fear from Al Queda as every other secular government. Al Quaeda and other groups with the same ideology want a hard line Islamic rule, not unlike Saudi Arabia or Iran. It's why Afghanistan was a prime spot for a base.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That saying comes out of the middle east. Saddam had much to fear but most of those fears could be put to rest as long as there was a common enemy. That too is part of the middle east culture.
Rewriting history works as well as the US learning from it's mistakes and knowing when not to repeat them. Perhaps two failed wars in a generation will be a better teacher than just one. You'd imagine for a country who want to be seen as world leaders and examples to follow wouldn't need an extra lesson but.....well, sometimes it takes people a little longer to pass the test.
Not knowing it or understanding current events give the later impression of rewriting history when it isn't. You spent a paragraph railing from the wrong assumption. One was simply my opinion with is supported by events, the other was the actual claims made by bush and cheney.
Another part of my opinion is that if Clinton would have went into Iraq back in 1995 when the UN inspectors were kicked out and Iraq started firing on patrols in the no fly zone, 9/11 would never have happened because we wouldn't have been seen as a weak blowhard that is more bark then bite. Saddam was actually running around saying he won the first gulf war, not the US and Allied forces, then when he obstructed inspections, we did nothing but launched some sanctions that corrupt UN officials used as leverage to make lucrative oil deals in violation of them. In other words, we effectivly responded with absolutely nothing at all. It's no wonder Al Qaeda thought it could attack with impunity.
I see that you have a real problem with reading. I explained the entire connection and no it wasn't the bush connection, I pointed out what that was later too.
It's more like your not continuing the conversation because you at a loss and a idiot.
The US political system is incredibly and famously corrupt.
Corrupt has a specific legal meaning. It is not corrupt. There may be things you don't like about it, you may even think things border corruption but it is not corrupt.
The United States is the most wealthy country in the world, and it's often said that it has "the best democracy money can buy". The entire system runs on money... hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on major elections. This is why the US political system is so responsive to the needs of the rich and so poor at reflecting the views of ordinary Americans. The government can give the banks billions of dollars because the banks have paid handsomely to own the politicians. The DMCA and the ridiculously long copyright terms were demanded by "IP" owners so they can extract more and more $$$ from ordinary people. "Single Payer" healthcare is supported by a solid majority of US citizens (according to polls) but their opinion is outweighted by the influence of $$$. I could go on all day, but instead I will go and do some work;-)
The federal government does not have any obligation to the people at all. It has no constitutional authority to get into health care or benefit anyone specifically. What you are seeing is by design. The federal government does not have limited powers, it is confined to constitutional authorize roles and powers and the courts have bent those rules a little but the reason you think it bends to the will of the rich is because it uses interstate commerce to do most of it's legislative wrangling. This means that they are pretty much confined to the areas that the rich play in and yes, you listen to the opinions of people who have been successful in those areas over the opinions of people who have never set foot into them or failed miserably at them. This is by design.
In short: corruption is there and you can't pretend it isn't real because it's legal; that's just sophistry.
Like I said, corruption has a specific legal meaning and it is illegal. You may want other things included in the coverage of corruption but as long as it isn't, then it is not corruption. You can call a motorcycle a car but no one would know what your talking about. It's the same with corruption, if you have actually evidence of it, report it because it's illegal. Just make sure you know what your talking about.
Every organizations has some form of corruption; the larger it gets, the worse it is.
And this is acceptable? From an organization that can change or ignore it's own charter at will without any serious repercussions like the effect of penalties of law?
Economic sanctions never work unless the goal is to destroy the general population.
I guess we will never know in this case will we? If they never work, then why were they used? Perhaps your suggestion of their futility relies more on the premise of them being defeated by other countries or actors then you realize.
The world did not have the belief that Saddam had WMDs. That may be a U.S. view. The rest of the world was listening to the experts. True, some states in Europe went along with the U.S. That had more to do with alliances and arm twisting than reality.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Quit fucking repeating that damn lie. Russia said he had them but they were confined. Germany said the same damn thing and added that it didn't pose a large enough threat for war. France Vetoed the actions or threatened to veto it because it was the primary beneficent of oil contracts made against the sanctions, the EU and the rest of Europe, at least from a political stand believed he had WMDs but wans't sure to the extent. Hell, even the damn UNSCUM quarterly reports questioned if Iraq was honest in their unverified disposals and frequently reported evasion tactics and civilian reports of mobile weapons labs. And most of this was reported under the direction of Hans Blix who later contradicted his own works stating that Iraq had no WMDs. Find a new fucking line but this one is old and tired and has been proven fallacious so many times over it isn't funny anymore.
here has never been a case where economic sanctions worked.
There hasn't? This paper seems to totally disagree with you and even suggested that the threat of sanctions are even more effective then sanctions themselves. Perhaps you could show where our getting your info from?
News flash, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. And that was the consensus from credible sources (outside the Bush administration).
Actually, Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Iraq didn't physically participate in it but you have to understand the culture in the middle east. Iraq refused to do what he was required to do under the armistice that ended the first gulf war and even taunted it with impunity. That made the US and allied nations look week which gave Al Qeada the balls to attack. When the number 2 Al Qeada operative was questioned after his capture, he stated that they never thought the response to 9/11 would be the way it was because they got the impression we were all talk from our dealing with Iraq. Now here is a news flash, this is the words of the guy who plotted 9/11 stating that our weak stance in Iraq gave them confidence to pull off 9/11 because they didn't fear serious retaliation.
Now Bush and Cheney put forth some arguments that high level Iraq operatives were in contact with High level operatives for al Qaeda, including Bin laden. I don't believe they ever said Iraq was behind 9/11, rather that they were helping bin laden which was true. There is even convincing evidence that Iraq was harboring some of Al Qeada's operatives which became apparent with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Several other Al Qaeda officials received treatments from battlefield wounds and safe harbor in Iraq for injuries sustained in Afghanistan.
If your going to make a comment on the matter, at least underst
You might want to add that the deposition he lied in was a court case about the very same subject material in which he was the defendant and which he was fined by the court (contempt of court) and lost his law license over after the impeachment was over and he was out of office at the expiration of his term.
I think you need to reevaluate your concerns and impressions there.
First, free speech does not mean a free platform for the speech and it definitely doesn't mean you can trump someone else' free speech. Free speech zones are not an impediment to speech, and they don't stop anyone from their speech. All they do is stop people from over taking other peoples free speech and safety. Again, free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger other people or trump over their free speech. If you think so, then you need to look again, especially when someone does the same to you making your speech impossible to get out.
Second, political corruption is illegal in the US. If it is something that is legal, then by definition, it is not corruption no matter how much you don't like it. You may subjectively find it unacceptable but it isn't corruption.
Third, special interest groups are nothing more then collections of people banding together to create a louder voice. It doesn't matter if they represent the retired citizens of the US (as AARP claims) or gun owners (Like NRA and other groups) or corporate interest (which would be the interest of all the share holders), they are all collections of people voicing the same opinions. There is nothing wrong with this as long as they play by the rules everyone else has to play by.
Finally, it seems like you need to pull your head out of the campaign literature and actually look around for yourself. You can object to certain things like pork barrel spending or special interest groups but don't pretend they are something more then what they are. That's the entire reason why no one seems to be fixing the problem, because idiots like you complain about the corruption that isn't there, the law breaking special interest groups and the people in power only look for those problem to fix while ignoring what your really talking about. Pretty soon, you and people like you end up looking like a bunch of loons and get ignored. So do yourself a favor and express things for what they really are and get a real grasp of the political system instead of inflated campaign mumblings designed to convince you to vote for the very people you rail against.
Ideally- yes. In practice, no- that's not necessarily the corruption in question. The UN power structure inside the organization itself has proven to be corrupt and self serving beyond any state interest. And yes, this has tied into state interests too. This was illustrated quite obviously when Kofi Annan's own family members (his son) were implicated in the UN oil-for-food scams that more or less forced the US into it's position of war.
And yes, the secrete oil deals that defeated the purpose of the UN sanctions on Iraq and exploited the citizens of Iraq and the political discourse of the UN and concerned countries for profit of enterprise and state kept Iraq in a position of non-compliance which in turn allowed Saddam to pretend to still have WMDs which lead the world to the same belief. If the UN sanctions weren't defeated by the corruption surrounding the UN, it's entirely possible that the intended goals of the sanctions would have worked and Iraq would have been in compliance with the goals and demands of the 1993 armistice and concerns over their actions after 9/11 would have not been present.
Online gambling wasn't a WIPO arbitration. It was a WTO arbitration concerning WIPO treaties which already have their own dispute process but was ignored.
The outrage of the online gambling arbitration is that the WTO gave two countries rights to ignore treaties under another completely different body in which it has absolutely no power over. Even the GATT and now defunct Tripp agreements don't allow it.
Perhaps if Beuller was in class, he could have given the proper answer before posting.
It probably should also be noted that even with all that has happened, the longest it can happen in the US under a single president is 8 years and there is the opportunity to end it every 4 years.
We also have most of what has happened under the previous administration like due process and so on administrated by the courts and more notably US Supreme Court which went against the administration on more then a couple of events.
So even when something does happen, it's not permanent nor is it out of the realm of being addressed. Look at how the courts went against some of these attempts to censor content.
The man was held for four hours to verify he wasn't a security threat, the excuse he gave wasn't listed in the product packaging for the drug he was taking and the report of this incident suggests that a letter from his doctors which he didn't have would have been enough to alleviate the problem when traveling to the US.
I see no mention outside of his detainment and the verification of his situation that he was treated badly or disrespectful in any way. Or is your "ZOMG! PROBABLE TERRORIST!" comment code for your belief that any foreign national who appears to be hiding his identity should be allowed into the country without questions? I mean seriously, the only thing that makes this a somewhat news worthy incident is that it was caused by a cancer drug that didn't list the problem on it's package labeling and no one thought of a doctors letter until after the fact.
If a country in space or a country sponsoring the crew (vessel commission and registration just like with marine ships) in space is a member country that has signed the two treaties, then yes.
The DMCA is really just the US implementation of the WTC and WPPT treaties. Outside of the penalties listed, almost everything is taken directly from those two treaties. Space craft are treated like marine vessels and fly under a flag which provides the protection of the country the flag serves. Besides international laws, the maritime laws of the country apply also which also includes any provisions of treaties the country may be a part of.
Yes and no. The DMCA applies to WIPO countries which have signed onto the WCT and the WPPT. the penalties might not be the same but the countries are obligated to the effects of the DMCA because it was pulled almost directly from those two treaties less the punishments.
This is how the US was able to extradite an Australian citizen to America for a violation of it. This is also why you see a lot of countries attempting to implement DMCA style laws.
You would be surprised at how many people live in those areas or want to because of family or whatever with the skill sets your looking for.
Ohio state and Michigan state both have top notch computer science courses as well as many niche courses in the same area. Plus you have people who moved to where the work was who would like to move back or closer to their real home.
It's probably not that safe/secure, if the 'admin' can't login to verify the update actually worked,
Well, the output of the log file that gets emailed to the user account would verify the update. You wouldn't need root privileges to view that and assuming whoever is in charge of grepping through it does their job, it could be possible that no updates have failed. I generally run my updates through test systems before going into production machines.
or periodically check the update didn't unexpectedly do something stupid like leave a world-writable executable (that a critical program runs in a privileged context from time to time).
In mandrake, msec is installed as a base tool. It can be loaded adjusted and loaded in other distros with some minor work but I believe that there is already something similar in most other distros. For instance Ubuntu has Tiger, Denyhosts, and tripwire, which are all likely to be able to be installed on other distros as well as other tools like SELinux.
Now don't get me wrong, and please understand that I'm not saying a system set up in this way "will" remain secure. I'm saying that it is possible to remain secure for quite a while without the root passwords and there can be situations where years go by before anything or anyone needs the root password. Distros will usually drop support for the distro (unless it's debian which seems to take 10 years to move the stable branch to unsupported. Or it did a few years ago) before a well secured *nix box gets compromised. Scripts to provide reports covering all you mentioned and probably more have been and can be set up in almost any distro. One of my favorite distros has been doing it since 1999/2001 for addon options and base installs. These scripts can be enough to maintain a reasonable level of assurance that everything is fine and the person reviewing them doesn't need a root password at all. I am also talking about Unix/Linux systems, not a windows box. While something like this may be possible in a windows box, it is less likely to just work without a root password or the Sudo equivalent.
Add additional support like Snort, properly configured firewalls, umask set up right and so on, years can go by before anyone ever needs the root password.
That could be assuming that the new admins know how to do that.
Anyways, I was just demonstrating that a system could be updated without knowing the root passwords or having full sudo to root privileges which is why they can be secure when no one knows the passwords.
I generally do contract work and on call work after the initial contract is satisfied so the being paged wouldn't bother me too much. It doesn't mean I'm dropping everything either but for the most part, I will do whatever is possible to make things work.
I have however fired clients before when they refuse to spend the money on something that later becomes a massive problem at the most inconvenient time. Those types of clients are usually slow payers that you have to remind every once in a while that the check got lost in the mail or something. It's not something that you don't see coming. I just document everything really well in case they start trashing your reputation. But in no way would I work full time at something like that. I agree with your point.
True if we are talking about cognitive thinking beings but we are looking at chickens not humans. It's not wise to be anthropomorphizing animals in an attempt to show human characteristics in them in support of the natural existence of the human characteristics.
The difference between humans and animals is that no matter how they view or accept another of their kind, humans have attached a moralistic objective or rule to it and act accordingly or unaccommodating to that rule verses instincts that come naturally.
The white on black racism in America stems from two fronts, one was the labeling of blacks as inferiors-less then human. I think at the time slavery was around, the miraculous science community determined that blacks were only four fifths human. This of course has been changed and even though there are specific differences between whites and blacks (diseases susceptibility as well as biological), we no longer think that way. Slavery hasn't been around in at least 4 generations so this is probably something racists look for and not a justification in and of itself.
The other cause which is probably what keeps racism alive in ways other countries just don't see is that after the civil war, all of the slaves were sent free with no means to care for themselves. They ended up taking jobs that whites were doing and they did them for less (no construct of proper pay for services they were previously forced to do free) which meant that many whites were displaced from their jobs. The freed slaves were less educated and under qualified in some cases but highering two to do the work of one was generally still cheaper then on trained person. The original KKK was more or less a labor union that attempted to create a place for freed slaves so as they didn't disrupt the whites as they fit into society. Of course this didn't work out well and resentment build that eventually turned into hate and the place for the freed men turned into a separate place, usually of lesser quality and so on.
You can see this happening with illegal aliens still today but with things like affirmative action where companies hire people based on the color of their skin over qualifications, or use ethnicity as a trumping qualifier when job candidates are equally qualifies, resentment festers again and poof, hate arises. But society says this hate is bad and we are expected to ignore our feelings, our self preservation instinct and not practice hate towards another human being. This is something that is not present in the animal kingdom at all and is why anthropomorphism in the realm of racism just isn't appropriate.
The interesting thing is that society has only concerned itself with dislike or hate of a person for natural and uncontrollable things like race, gender, religion and so on.
It's likely a positioning move to get steeper discounts.
What would put another nail in MS's coffin would be them calling the bluff and forcing NZ to take on quite a bit of Open source software. Once past the "OMG it's different then what we have always used" stage, it might be more then enough to the government agencies and lead to more OSS adoption.
Not really. The user account with admin root privs could be limited to running some update script or tool that runs under root by default without the user having the ability to run anything else as root. For that matter, there could be an update repository on the local network and you convert the updates to.rpm or.deb or something and a cron job looks for new files and automatically runs them.
There are numerous ways to keep something updated without the passwords. In Mandrake, I used to run a script weekly as a cron job that was basically (form memory).
#!/bin/bash urpmi.update -a && urpmi --auto-select --auto -v 2>&1/home/user/update | mail -s update @
If I remembered right, it would list errors at the top of the file, then list everything that was updated and email the file to me. And yes, I originally had help with the command and don't use it anymore. This is mostly because Mandrake sort of sucks ever since they switched the name to Mandriva and I have moved to other distros.
Or how about a new CTO pissing both admins off and one walking out as the other was fired for no good reason.
I've had to walk in behind something like that several times and reset the passwords or load the password hashes into some cracker in order to find the passwords. A lot of times, you can pull them from workstations the old admins used and they are easier to crack then the newer MS servers. The funniest thing is that the CTO usually wants me to stay on full time and gives me a dirty look when I won't do it because he made life so miserable that two other people walk off the job under his supervision.
Only if an outside entity controls them. The people who owned the house my mother purchased had some deal where the electric company could install a box and turn off the water heater and AC during peak periods. It was supposed to be one then the other if the load wasn't tamed and there was supposed to be a discounted rate for doing it.
Instead, when you wanted hot water, there wasn't any if someone fucked up and did dishes, a load of laundry or something in the afternoon, and the AC would let the fan kick on or two or three hours but not the pump. We actually had to pay $180 minimum service fee to be told that was the problem when we thought the AC was going bad and not working in the hottest part of the day. And she didn't even get the discounted rates because she wasn't the owner when they were installed.
I removed them, fought with the local electric coop, almost had to go to court until I got the Public Utilities commission involved. It's nothing but a headache of inconvenience and people have no idea how much it is. I think I would take the rolling blackouts in California over giving up control of my home appliances to some third party.
I have to ask because of the subject line, but when you wrote IANAL- do you mean you are not a lawyer or you like ANAL (giving or getting- it doesn't matter)?
The entire problem with the geographical separation is that you can have a yellow lab in America and a yellow lab in Australia, and you will have to call them separate species.
What this does point out is that more of the species in that past only seen through fossils and bones may in fact be the same species at a stage of breed.
This is a problem with changing the definition of speciation without changing the definition of species or without changing the labeling of species that no longer fall into the species. Birds for instance, some of them would naturally be different species of birds while some may be different breeds of the same species. But taking different breeds of the same species and calling them different species because something like an ocean or mountain separates them is a bit moronic when all other criteria for a specied exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. The problem here is that I didn't claim iraq was behind 9/11, I said their actions emboldened Al Qaeda because of the culture in the middle east and Al Qaeda admitted that it thought our response would be meaningless saber rattling instead of a full blown war. If you somehow think that is supporting bush then you have some problems.
Now, I did point to some links to what Bush has said. It seems the big problem there is again, people like you who only take what you want to hear and confound that into something else. Bush and Cheney both said that Iraq and Al Qaeda was working together and had ties. That much is true and verifiable. But you and many like you want to take that to mean Bush and Cheney was saying Iraq was behind 9/11 which is completely wrong. SO pull your head out of your ass and actually pay attention to what is being said and not what you think or want to think is being said.
Read above, the 9/11 report said high level Iraqi officials had meetings with ranking Al Qaeda personnel. They said those meeting didn't link Iraq to 9/11 though.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That saying comes out of the middle east. Saddam had much to fear but most of those fears could be put to rest as long as there was a common enemy. That too is part of the middle east culture.
Not knowing it or understanding current events give the later impression of rewriting history when it isn't. You spent a paragraph railing from the wrong assumption. One was simply my opinion with is supported by events, the other was the actual claims made by bush and cheney.
Another part of my opinion is that if Clinton would have went into Iraq back in 1995 when the UN inspectors were kicked out and Iraq started firing on patrols in the no fly zone, 9/11 would never have happened because we wouldn't have been seen as a weak blowhard that is more bark then bite. Saddam was actually running around saying he won the first gulf war, not the US and Allied forces, then when he obstructed inspections, we did nothing but launched some sanctions that corrupt UN officials used as leverage to make lucrative oil deals in violation of them. In other words, we effectivly responded with absolutely nothing at all. It's no wonder Al Qaeda thought it could attack with impunity.
I see that you have a real problem with reading. I explained the entire connection and no it wasn't the bush connection, I pointed out what that was later too.
It's more like your not continuing the conversation because you at a loss and a idiot.
Corrupt has a specific legal meaning. It is not corrupt. There may be things you don't like about it, you may even think things border corruption but it is not corrupt.
The federal government does not have any obligation to the people at all. It has no constitutional authority to get into health care or benefit anyone specifically. What you are seeing is by design. The federal government does not have limited powers, it is confined to constitutional authorize roles and powers and the courts have bent those rules a little but the reason you think it bends to the will of the rich is because it uses interstate commerce to do most of it's legislative wrangling. This means that they are pretty much confined to the areas that the rich play in and yes, you listen to the opinions of people who have been successful in those areas over the opinions of people who have never set foot into them or failed miserably at them. This is by design.
Like I said, corruption has a specific legal meaning and it is illegal. You may want other things included in the coverage of corruption but as long as it isn't, then it is not corruption. You can call a motorcycle a car but no one would know what your talking about. It's the same with corruption, if you have actually evidence of it, report it because it's illegal. Just make sure you know what your talking about.
And this is acceptable? From an organization that can change or ignore it's own charter at will without any serious repercussions like the effect of penalties of law?
I guess we will never know in this case will we? If they never work, then why were they used? Perhaps your suggestion of their futility relies more on the premise of them being defeated by other countries or actors then you realize.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Quit fucking repeating that damn lie. Russia said he had them but they were confined. Germany said the same damn thing and added that it didn't pose a large enough threat for war. France Vetoed the actions or threatened to veto it because it was the primary beneficent of oil contracts made against the sanctions, the EU and the rest of Europe, at least from a political stand believed he had WMDs but wans't sure to the extent. Hell, even the damn UNSCUM quarterly reports questioned if Iraq was honest in their unverified disposals and frequently reported evasion tactics and civilian reports of mobile weapons labs. And most of this was reported under the direction of Hans Blix who later contradicted his own works stating that Iraq had no WMDs. Find a new fucking line but this one is old and tired and has been proven fallacious so many times over it isn't funny anymore.
There hasn't? This paper seems to totally disagree with you and even suggested that the threat of sanctions are even more effective then sanctions themselves. Perhaps you could show where our getting your info from?
Actually, Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Iraq didn't physically participate in it but you have to understand the culture in the middle east. Iraq refused to do what he was required to do under the armistice that ended the first gulf war and even taunted it with impunity. That made the US and allied nations look week which gave Al Qeada the balls to attack. When the number 2 Al Qeada operative was questioned after his capture, he stated that they never thought the response to 9/11 would be the way it was because they got the impression we were all talk from our dealing with Iraq. Now here is a news flash, this is the words of the guy who plotted 9/11 stating that our weak stance in Iraq gave them confidence to pull off 9/11 because they didn't fear serious retaliation.
Now Bush and Cheney put forth some arguments that high level Iraq operatives were in contact with High level operatives for al Qaeda, including Bin laden. I don't believe they ever said Iraq was behind 9/11, rather that they were helping bin laden which was true. There is even convincing evidence that Iraq was harboring some of Al Qeada's operatives which became apparent with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Several other Al Qaeda officials received treatments from battlefield wounds and safe harbor in Iraq for injuries sustained in Afghanistan.
If your going to make a comment on the matter, at least underst
You might want to add that the deposition he lied in was a court case about the very same subject material in which he was the defendant and which he was fined by the court (contempt of court) and lost his law license over after the impeachment was over and he was out of office at the expiration of his term.
Here is another look from a PDF file from the personal page of Dr. Ronald B. Standler
I think you need to reevaluate your concerns and impressions there.
First, free speech does not mean a free platform for the speech and it definitely doesn't mean you can trump someone else' free speech. Free speech zones are not an impediment to speech, and they don't stop anyone from their speech. All they do is stop people from over taking other peoples free speech and safety. Again, free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger other people or trump over their free speech. If you think so, then you need to look again, especially when someone does the same to you making your speech impossible to get out.
Second, political corruption is illegal in the US. If it is something that is legal, then by definition, it is not corruption no matter how much you don't like it. You may subjectively find it unacceptable but it isn't corruption.
Third, special interest groups are nothing more then collections of people banding together to create a louder voice. It doesn't matter if they represent the retired citizens of the US (as AARP claims) or gun owners (Like NRA and other groups) or corporate interest (which would be the interest of all the share holders), they are all collections of people voicing the same opinions. There is nothing wrong with this as long as they play by the rules everyone else has to play by.
Finally, it seems like you need to pull your head out of the campaign literature and actually look around for yourself. You can object to certain things like pork barrel spending or special interest groups but don't pretend they are something more then what they are. That's the entire reason why no one seems to be fixing the problem, because idiots like you complain about the corruption that isn't there, the law breaking special interest groups and the people in power only look for those problem to fix while ignoring what your really talking about. Pretty soon, you and people like you end up looking like a bunch of loons and get ignored. So do yourself a favor and express things for what they really are and get a real grasp of the political system instead of inflated campaign mumblings designed to convince you to vote for the very people you rail against.
Ideally- yes. In practice, no- that's not necessarily the corruption in question. The UN power structure inside the organization itself has proven to be corrupt and self serving beyond any state interest. And yes, this has tied into state interests too. This was illustrated quite obviously when Kofi Annan's own family members (his son) were implicated in the UN oil-for-food scams that more or less forced the US into it's position of war.
And yes, the secrete oil deals that defeated the purpose of the UN sanctions on Iraq and exploited the citizens of Iraq and the political discourse of the UN and concerned countries for profit of enterprise and state kept Iraq in a position of non-compliance which in turn allowed Saddam to pretend to still have WMDs which lead the world to the same belief. If the UN sanctions weren't defeated by the corruption surrounding the UN, it's entirely possible that the intended goals of the sanctions would have worked and Iraq would have been in compliance with the goals and demands of the 1993 armistice and concerns over their actions after 9/11 would have not been present.
Online gambling wasn't a WIPO arbitration. It was a WTO arbitration concerning WIPO treaties which already have their own dispute process but was ignored.
The outrage of the online gambling arbitration is that the WTO gave two countries rights to ignore treaties under another completely different body in which it has absolutely no power over. Even the GATT and now defunct Tripp agreements don't allow it.
Perhaps if Beuller was in class, he could have given the proper answer before posting.
It probably should also be noted that even with all that has happened, the longest it can happen in the US under a single president is 8 years and there is the opportunity to end it every 4 years.
We also have most of what has happened under the previous administration like due process and so on administrated by the courts and more notably US Supreme Court which went against the administration on more then a couple of events.
So even when something does happen, it's not permanent nor is it out of the realm of being addressed. Look at how the courts went against some of these attempts to censor content.
The cranial-rectal extraction surgery shows they were inserted close enough to each others that apparent approximation was enough to have the effect.
Oh wait, am I in violation of HIPPA laws now?
The man was held for four hours to verify he wasn't a security threat, the excuse he gave wasn't listed in the product packaging for the drug he was taking and the report of this incident suggests that a letter from his doctors which he didn't have would have been enough to alleviate the problem when traveling to the US.
I see no mention outside of his detainment and the verification of his situation that he was treated badly or disrespectful in any way. Or is your "ZOMG! PROBABLE TERRORIST!" comment code for your belief that any foreign national who appears to be hiding his identity should be allowed into the country without questions? I mean seriously, the only thing that makes this a somewhat news worthy incident is that it was caused by a cancer drug that didn't list the problem on it's package labeling and no one thought of a doctors letter until after the fact.
If a country in space or a country sponsoring the crew (vessel commission and registration just like with marine ships) in space is a member country that has signed the two treaties, then yes.
The DMCA is really just the US implementation of the WTC and WPPT treaties. Outside of the penalties listed, almost everything is taken directly from those two treaties. Space craft are treated like marine vessels and fly under a flag which provides the protection of the country the flag serves. Besides international laws, the maritime laws of the country apply also which also includes any provisions of treaties the country may be a part of.
Yes and no. The DMCA applies to WIPO countries which have signed onto the WCT and the WPPT. the penalties might not be the same but the countries are obligated to the effects of the DMCA because it was pulled almost directly from those two treaties less the punishments.
This is how the US was able to extradite an Australian citizen to America for a violation of it. This is also why you see a lot of countries attempting to implement DMCA style laws.
You would be surprised at how many people live in those areas or want to because of family or whatever with the skill sets your looking for.
Ohio state and Michigan state both have top notch computer science courses as well as many niche courses in the same area. Plus you have people who moved to where the work was who would like to move back or closer to their real home.
Well, the output of the log file that gets emailed to the user account would verify the update. You wouldn't need root privileges to view that and assuming whoever is in charge of grepping through it does their job, it could be possible that no updates have failed. I generally run my updates through test systems before going into production machines.
In mandrake, msec is installed as a base tool. It can be loaded adjusted and loaded in other distros with some minor work but I believe that there is already something similar in most other distros. For instance Ubuntu has Tiger, Denyhosts, and tripwire, which are all likely to be able to be installed on other distros as well as other tools like SELinux.
Now don't get me wrong, and please understand that I'm not saying a system set up in this way "will" remain secure. I'm saying that it is possible to remain secure for quite a while without the root passwords and there can be situations where years go by before anything or anyone needs the root password. Distros will usually drop support for the distro (unless it's debian which seems to take 10 years to move the stable branch to unsupported. Or it did a few years ago) before a well secured *nix box gets compromised. Scripts to provide reports covering all you mentioned and probably more have been and can be set up in almost any distro. One of my favorite distros has been doing it since 1999/2001 for addon options and base installs. These scripts can be enough to maintain a reasonable level of assurance that everything is fine and the person reviewing them doesn't need a root password at all. I am also talking about Unix/Linux systems, not a windows box. While something like this may be possible in a windows box, it is less likely to just work without a root password or the Sudo equivalent.
Add additional support like Snort, properly configured firewalls, umask set up right and so on, years can go by before anyone ever needs the root password.
That could be assuming that the new admins know how to do that.
Anyways, I was just demonstrating that a system could be updated without knowing the root passwords or having full sudo to root privileges which is why they can be secure when no one knows the passwords.
I generally do contract work and on call work after the initial contract is satisfied so the being paged wouldn't bother me too much. It doesn't mean I'm dropping everything either but for the most part, I will do whatever is possible to make things work.
I have however fired clients before when they refuse to spend the money on something that later becomes a massive problem at the most inconvenient time. Those types of clients are usually slow payers that you have to remind every once in a while that the check got lost in the mail or something. It's not something that you don't see coming. I just document everything really well in case they start trashing your reputation. But in no way would I work full time at something like that. I agree with your point.
True if we are talking about cognitive thinking beings but we are looking at chickens not humans. It's not wise to be anthropomorphizing animals in an attempt to show human characteristics in them in support of the natural existence of the human characteristics.
The difference between humans and animals is that no matter how they view or accept another of their kind, humans have attached a moralistic objective or rule to it and act accordingly or unaccommodating to that rule verses instincts that come naturally.
The white on black racism in America stems from two fronts, one was the labeling of blacks as inferiors-less then human. I think at the time slavery was around, the miraculous science community determined that blacks were only four fifths human. This of course has been changed and even though there are specific differences between whites and blacks (diseases susceptibility as well as biological), we no longer think that way. Slavery hasn't been around in at least 4 generations so this is probably something racists look for and not a justification in and of itself.
The other cause which is probably what keeps racism alive in ways other countries just don't see is that after the civil war, all of the slaves were sent free with no means to care for themselves. They ended up taking jobs that whites were doing and they did them for less (no construct of proper pay for services they were previously forced to do free) which meant that many whites were displaced from their jobs. The freed slaves were less educated and under qualified in some cases but highering two to do the work of one was generally still cheaper then on trained person. The original KKK was more or less a labor union that attempted to create a place for freed slaves so as they didn't disrupt the whites as they fit into society. Of course this didn't work out well and resentment build that eventually turned into hate and the place for the freed men turned into a separate place, usually of lesser quality and so on.
You can see this happening with illegal aliens still today but with things like affirmative action where companies hire people based on the color of their skin over qualifications, or use ethnicity as a trumping qualifier when job candidates are equally qualifies, resentment festers again and poof, hate arises. But society says this hate is bad and we are expected to ignore our feelings, our self preservation instinct and not practice hate towards another human being. This is something that is not present in the animal kingdom at all and is why anthropomorphism in the realm of racism just isn't appropriate.
The interesting thing is that society has only concerned itself with dislike or hate of a person for natural and uncontrollable things like race, gender, religion and so on.
You don't think a sunken navy ship is worth going and seeing on its own?
I think it will be the best of both worlds for a while.
It's likely a positioning move to get steeper discounts.
What would put another nail in MS's coffin would be them calling the bluff and forcing NZ to take on quite a bit of Open source software. Once past the "OMG it's different then what we have always used" stage, it might be more then enough to the government agencies and lead to more OSS adoption.
Not really. The user account with admin root privs could be limited to running some update script or tool that runs under root by default without the user having the ability to run anything else as root. For that matter, there could be an update repository on the local network and you convert the updates to .rpm or .deb or something and a cron job looks for new files and automatically runs them.
There are numerous ways to keep something updated without the passwords. In Mandrake, I used to run a script weekly as a cron job that was basically (form memory).
#!/bin/bash /home/user/update | mail -s update @
urpmi.update -a && urpmi --auto-select --auto -v 2>&1
If I remembered right, it would list errors at the top of the file, then list everything that was updated and email the file to me. And yes, I originally had help with the command and don't use it anymore. This is mostly because Mandrake sort of sucks ever since they switched the name to Mandriva and I have moved to other distros.
Or how about a new CTO pissing both admins off and one walking out as the other was fired for no good reason.
I've had to walk in behind something like that several times and reset the passwords or load the password hashes into some cracker in order to find the passwords. A lot of times, you can pull them from workstations the old admins used and they are easier to crack then the newer MS servers. The funniest thing is that the CTO usually wants me to stay on full time and gives me a dirty look when I won't do it because he made life so miserable that two other people walk off the job under his supervision.
Only if an outside entity controls them. The people who owned the house my mother purchased had some deal where the electric company could install a box and turn off the water heater and AC during peak periods. It was supposed to be one then the other if the load wasn't tamed and there was supposed to be a discounted rate for doing it.
Instead, when you wanted hot water, there wasn't any if someone fucked up and did dishes, a load of laundry or something in the afternoon, and the AC would let the fan kick on or two or three hours but not the pump. We actually had to pay $180 minimum service fee to be told that was the problem when we thought the AC was going bad and not working in the hottest part of the day. And she didn't even get the discounted rates because she wasn't the owner when they were installed.
I removed them, fought with the local electric coop, almost had to go to court until I got the Public Utilities commission involved. It's nothing but a headache of inconvenience and people have no idea how much it is. I think I would take the rolling blackouts in California over giving up control of my home appliances to some third party.
I have to ask because of the subject line, but when you wrote IANAL- do you mean you are not a lawyer or you like ANAL (giving or getting- it doesn't matter)?
Just wondering.
The entire problem with the geographical separation is that you can have a yellow lab in America and a yellow lab in Australia, and you will have to call them separate species.
What this does point out is that more of the species in that past only seen through fossils and bones may in fact be the same species at a stage of breed.
This is a problem with changing the definition of speciation without changing the definition of species or without changing the labeling of species that no longer fall into the species. Birds for instance, some of them would naturally be different species of birds while some may be different breeds of the same species. But taking different breeds of the same species and calling them different species because something like an ocean or mountain separates them is a bit moronic when all other criteria for a specied exists.