True. And I also thought that half of the RIAA's arguments were that when you bought a CD, you were buying a "license" to use that CD and that you didn't actually own the music on it anyway... or was that what Microsoft was saying about software? Something like that, anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I've used SuSE 8.0/8.1/9.0, Slackware 10, Fedora 4/6/8/9 and now Fedora 10 and I have no designs of creating a "Windows" box. But there is functionality that I'm denied because of that choice, and I wish there wasn't. Yes, it's the hardware companies' fault, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And it doesn't mean that Windows doesn't do it better (in general).
I only wish Linux had numbers like this. For all the hours I've spent building ndiswrapper or ATI display drivers on any number of boxes... I don't even have that much weird hardware, but Linux printing support is way behind, 3D display is way behind, sound support is sometimes flawless and sometimes nonexistent.
Not that I'm about to use Windows, but it would be nice.
"So socialized heathcare is unconstitutional? Is socialized police protection unconstitutional? Socialized fire protection? Socialized public education?"
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. We don't have any of those things in the U.S.A. The federal government provides money to the STATES for education, and perhaps for the other services you mentioned as well (I honestly don't know). However, the federal government does not provide me fire protection (most firemen in the U.S.A. outside large cities are volunteers anyway), education, or local police. These things are outside the enumerated powers of article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution -- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8.
A caveat to your argument is that in ten years, the electricity infrastructure is likely to be far more effective and efficient than it is today. The current price of gasoline (and its cause, the high price of oil) are pushing all sorts of investments into electric power. Will all of them pan out? No. But some of them will, and by the time there are enough people wanting to buy the Chevy Volt, or whatever other all-electric car is on the market at that point - personally I'm looking for a good deal on a Tesla Roadster (http://www.teslamotors.com/) - the infrastructure will have grown to accommodate the new demands.
As mentioned a few other places, we were given several machines (5 Windows, 2 Fedora 6) which we had to put on our network. Based on the budgeting rules, we scrapped one Windows box (a Windows 2000 XMPP server) and replaced it with a FreeBSD box. That server and three "user workstation" machines (1 Fedora, 2 Windows XP) were absolutely riddled with rootkits and other malware. We removed as much as we could find beforehand, but missed one rootkit in one of the Windows machines.
The cost of free software is, of course, nothing... but the notional costs, built into the exercise through a restrictive budgeting system, of deploying those tools, along with training people to use them, put them outside our notional budget for the exercise.
"Fedora Core 8 Web server", I'm guessing the Windows system was being run by one of the other teams.
Yes, we ran a Fedora 8 LAMP server, but we were also required to run a Windows domain controller, an exchange server, and a Windows DNS server, along with two XP user workstations. The rest of our network, to including logging, traffic monitoring, and XMPP services, ran on FreeBSD (our choice). You're right though; not many of the reporters grasped much of what was going on.
As the cadet in charge of security for the Linux/FreeBSD boxes on the network, I can say that yes, it was LAMP on a Fedora 8 box; the NSA gave us 5 Windows virtual machines and 2 running Fedora 6. Because of the rules of the exercise, basically a very restrictive budget, we were able to build a Fedora repo and update the two linux machines to Fedora 8, but not enable firewalls or antivirus on any but a select few. Two of the Windows machines and the non-LAMP Fedora box were meant to simulate user workstations; these contained the rootkits.
This is already in place, through the FBCB2/BlueForceTracker systems. Almost every deployed vehicle in the Army has it. The problem is getting people trained, proficient, and motivated to use it.
"You're talking about traditional military intelligence here. It's tactically useless."
Yes, that's _exactly_ my point. No, I'm not retired, and yes, I understand your position... I'm currently in a department that has produced friendly-target IR recognition capability vests, mortar proximity warning devices to be attached to LBVs, and a device that can give soldiers the general direction of a sniper based on only the audio signature of rounds fired, all within the last four or five years. I know that the capabilities you're talking about don't exist at a level anywhere near sufficient for what the uses you bring up.
"You see, your[sic] fighting the last war. With proper intelligence you'll know exactly where the people are before they start shooting at you."
I'm not concerned about where "the people" are; I'm concerned with which one will shoot at me next. When intelligence can tell me things that I, as a squad leader or a platoon leader with a five- or ten-month long relationship with these people, can't figure out on my own, then it's useful. If a computer can tell me that person ABCDE in crowded marketplace FGHIJ is going to blow himself up right as my patrol gets to the center, that's useful. As I mentioned before, that has yet to happen on a tactical basis.
"If it takes more than minutes, in some cases seconds"
Pre- or post-engagement intelligence is, if not superb, useful, but what you're talking about can't take minutes. If it takes me five minutes to find the members of my element, something is very wrong. Seconds would be helpful; instantaneous is what I really need (yes; I'm a realist, I know this is impossible, but that's also part of my point).
Are you kidding me?! In a firefight, you "focus" your attention on as much as you can take in at once. All the intelligence in the world doesn't matter if you can't see the people shooting at you from 30, 50, 100 meters away. You should _never_ focus your attention on just one "critical point" if you want to survive. Situational awareness means that you know _everything_ that is going on around you, which you can't do if you're staring at a monitor with your fingers on a keyboard.
As a side note, I've never had intelligence tell me anything I didn't already know about the "critical point". That decision gets made on the ground, at the front. For the commander, sitting at his FBCB2 terminal in the FOB or BC2S terminal on his command bird, you may be right. But for the soldier holding the M16 with his computer attached to his body, you're way off. This is a tactical device we're talking about, not a strategic computer.
In answer to your questions, allow me to clarify this highly misleading quote from the summary:
'To avoid publishing the patents, a central tenet of the patent system, "the project made use of an obscure law whereby patent applications could be filed but no one would actually look at them or evaluate them. They would just be stamped secret and stored in a vault at the patent office."'
Top-secret government projects, like the Manhattan Project and the F-117 Nighthawk are, in fact, documented at the USPO in a protected vault, but they are documented as patent applications, not actual patents. If other entities develop technology which might infringe on patents related to the projects, the government asks the USPO to open whichever application is related. It's more "proof of prior art" than anything else. Once the actual patent is filed, the technology becomes public knowledge, so anyone else who applies for a patent on that technology will find their patent rejected along with good documentation of exactly why.
Scary? A little. But it's hard to think of any better, viable way to protect classified technology.
I'm working under the (possibly mistaken) assumption that you're from the UK, and also under the assumption that you have not, in fact, been to China (outside, perhaps, Hong Kong). Allow me to assure you, the UK is infinitely better off than China in these measures.
I don't think I even understand what you mean by "The UK is probably more of a undemocratic totalitarian state, whereas the Chinese are maybe involved in more actual death." What does that mean? The UK is certainly more democratic and less totalitarian than China. Also, the forced paper signing was due to CHINESE constraints (through diplomatic constraints on the UK), not those of the UK.
"Is it the school or the select group of people the admit."
Assuming this is a question, I think the answer is both. The students are smarter, so they are perhaps easier to educate, but they are also motivated/encouraged/challenged by their classmates, so the simple fact that the student boy is smarter leads directly to the conclusion that the education is better.
To measure what I am talking about, imagine a very intelligent student. Would they be better educated after graduating from Averageville Community College or from Harvard, all other things being equal? I'd argue the latter; the education itself is better at Harvard.
"Going to Harvard will provide you with less of an education."
I beg to differ. Have you spoken to many Harvard undergraduates recently? There is good reason for the high price (and resultant status) of a Harvard education.
(No, I'm not a Harvard undergraduate/alum/whatever, but I have had to compete with them at a few engineering design competitions, and it's rough! If they aren't getting an education, I don't know where you'd get one!)
Still not in the Constitution. And it says nothing about "separation," only that no law can respect an (single) establishment or prevent free exercise thereof.
That's my only point, that everyone says it was in the Constitution, but it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
True. And I also thought that half of the RIAA's arguments were that when you bought a CD, you were buying a "license" to use that CD and that you didn't actually own the music on it anyway... or was that what Microsoft was saying about software? Something like that, anyway.
So do we own it, or do we not?
Don't get me wrong, I've used SuSE 8.0/8.1/9.0, Slackware 10, Fedora 4/6/8/9 and now Fedora 10 and I have no designs of creating a "Windows" box. But there is functionality that I'm denied because of that choice, and I wish there wasn't. Yes, it's the hardware companies' fault, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And it doesn't mean that Windows doesn't do it better (in general).
I only wish Linux had numbers like this. For all the hours I've spent building ndiswrapper or ATI display drivers on any number of boxes... I don't even have that much weird hardware, but Linux printing support is way behind, 3D display is way behind, sound support is sometimes flawless and sometimes nonexistent.
Not that I'm about to use Windows, but it would be nice.
If we're to expect a degree of research and professionalism from newspapers and magazines, then I need a dueling sword... bring on the journalists!
"the point of the entire exercise of voting: make the people feel like their voice counts in their government"
I thought it was so that their voice actually DID count in their government?
"So socialized heathcare is unconstitutional? Is socialized police protection unconstitutional? Socialized fire protection? Socialized public education?"
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. We don't have any of those things in the U.S.A. The federal government provides money to the STATES for education, and perhaps for the other services you mentioned as well (I honestly don't know). However, the federal government does not provide me fire protection (most firemen in the U.S.A. outside large cities are volunteers anyway), education, or local police. These things are outside the enumerated powers of article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution -- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8.
A caveat to your argument is that in ten years, the electricity infrastructure is likely to be far more effective and efficient than it is today. The current price of gasoline (and its cause, the high price of oil) are pushing all sorts of investments into electric power. Will all of them pan out? No. But some of them will, and by the time there are enough people wanting to buy the Chevy Volt, or whatever other all-electric car is on the market at that point - personally I'm looking for a good deal on a Tesla Roadster (http://www.teslamotors.com/) - the infrastructure will have grown to accommodate the new demands.
How to remove "impossible-to-remove" toolbars: http://lifehacker.com/software/firefox/geek-to-live--consolidate-firefoxs-chrome-210542.php
Or, to get more space: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/307
Hooray FVWM!!!
As mentioned a few other places, we were given several machines (5 Windows, 2 Fedora 6) which we had to put on our network. Based on the budgeting rules, we scrapped one Windows box (a Windows 2000 XMPP server) and replaced it with a FreeBSD box. That server and three "user workstation" machines (1 Fedora, 2 Windows XP) were absolutely riddled with rootkits and other malware. We removed as much as we could find beforehand, but missed one rootkit in one of the Windows machines.
The cost of free software is, of course, nothing... but the notional costs, built into the exercise through a restrictive budgeting system, of deploying those tools, along with training people to use them, put them outside our notional budget for the exercise.
Ummm.... cadets = Army or Air Force.
Refloat = Navy.
You mean "midshipmen".
And yes, as a matter of fact, the US Naval Academy participated, and they got destroyed.
As the cadet in charge of security for the Linux/FreeBSD boxes on the network, I can say that yes, it was LAMP on a Fedora 8 box; the NSA gave us 5 Windows virtual machines and 2 running Fedora 6. Because of the rules of the exercise, basically a very restrictive budget, we were able to build a Fedora repo and update the two linux machines to Fedora 8, but not enable firewalls or antivirus on any but a select few. Two of the Windows machines and the non-LAMP Fedora box were meant to simulate user workstations; these contained the rootkits.
This is already in place, through the FBCB2/BlueForceTracker systems. Almost every deployed vehicle in the Army has it. The problem is getting people trained, proficient, and motivated to use it.
Are you kidding me?! In a firefight, you "focus" your attention on as much as you can take in at once. All the intelligence in the world doesn't matter if you can't see the people shooting at you from 30, 50, 100 meters away. You should _never_ focus your attention on just one "critical point" if you want to survive. Situational awareness means that you know _everything_ that is going on around you, which you can't do if you're staring at a monitor with your fingers on a keyboard.
As a side note, I've never had intelligence tell me anything I didn't already know about the "critical point". That decision gets made on the ground, at the front. For the commander, sitting at his FBCB2 terminal in the FOB or BC2S terminal on his command bird, you may be right. But for the soldier holding the M16 with his computer attached to his body, you're way off. This is a tactical device we're talking about, not a strategic computer.
Mod parent up. Exactly. Despite the spelling/grammar errors.
In answer to your questions, allow me to clarify this highly misleading quote from the summary:
'To avoid publishing the patents, a central tenet of the patent system, "the project made use of an obscure law whereby patent applications could be filed but no one would actually look at them or evaluate them. They would just be stamped secret and stored in a vault at the patent office."'
Top-secret government projects, like the Manhattan Project and the F-117 Nighthawk are, in fact, documented at the USPO in a protected vault, but they are documented as patent applications, not actual patents. If other entities develop technology which might infringe on patents related to the projects, the government asks the USPO to open whichever application is related. It's more "proof of prior art" than anything else. Once the actual patent is filed, the technology becomes public knowledge, so anyone else who applies for a patent on that technology will find their patent rejected along with good documentation of exactly why.
Scary? A little. But it's hard to think of any better, viable way to protect classified technology.
Microsoft Excel? I don't even ask that much -- just that Microsoft Works.
I'm working under the (possibly mistaken) assumption that you're from the UK, and also under the assumption that you have not, in fact, been to China (outside, perhaps, Hong Kong). Allow me to assure you, the UK is infinitely better off than China in these measures.
I don't think I even understand what you mean by "The UK is probably more of a undemocratic totalitarian state, whereas the Chinese are maybe involved in more actual death." What does that mean? The UK is certainly more democratic and less totalitarian than China. Also, the forced paper signing was due to CHINESE constraints (through diplomatic constraints on the UK), not those of the UK.
"Is it the school or the select group of people the admit."
Assuming this is a question, I think the answer is both. The students are smarter, so they are perhaps easier to educate, but they are also motivated/encouraged/challenged by their classmates, so the simple fact that the student boy is smarter leads directly to the conclusion that the education is better.
To measure what I am talking about, imagine a very intelligent student. Would they be better educated after graduating from Averageville Community College or from Harvard, all other things being equal? I'd argue the latter; the education itself is better at Harvard.
"Going to Harvard will provide you with less of an education."
I beg to differ. Have you spoken to many Harvard undergraduates recently? There is good reason for the high price (and resultant status) of a Harvard education.
(No, I'm not a Harvard undergraduate/alum/whatever, but I have had to compete with them at a few engineering design competitions, and it's rough! If they aren't getting an education, I don't know where you'd get one!)
Can ANYONE dispute that this description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Does not describe your post?
Still not in the Constitution. And it says nothing about "separation," only that no law can respect an (single) establishment or prevent free exercise thereof.
That's my only point, that everyone says it was in the Constitution, but it wasn't.