And for what it's worth, my settings since I bought the phone have been:
Auto Locate: Off. You will be asked for authorization when an application requests your location. (I get prompted each time I start any app that wants my location. I can say no, and it starts with "limited functionality", like requiring me to type in a zip code for movie searches manually.)
Use GPS: Off (I turn it on when I need to use it. Privacy and battery life concerns. Due to the latter, I know it's off when I turn it off.)
Background Data Collection: Off (Based on someone else's post, I would guess this is Google using GPS coordinates and cell tower info to figure out where the cell towers are so they can provide location services without GPS active.)
I don' t have a Geotag Photos option.
Checking the current/var/context/contextfile, the first line is "{ "Location": false }". Every other line in there is an app start/stop time.
That doesn't mean it doesn't start up the GPS when it crashes to find coordinates to report, or anything... but I'd be curious what Joey's settings were here.
I've listened to your presentation and your message is essentially this: you shouldn't use IP based spam filtering because that will encourage spammers to exploit flaws in the border gateway protocol, therefore you should use content filtering.
There are several problems with that thesis. There are indeed several problems with that thesis, but that's not the one he's presented; it's a strawman.
The thesis is rather:
1. Content filters work, and no one has yet demonstrated they can be seriously subverted when correctly applied.
2. Delivery-based countermeasures do not work, and only promote an arms race that will only end when airlines chain passengers naked to their seats. Er, sorry, I mixed two up there. Whatever.
Content filtering doesn't work well. Prove it. No, really, please do.
Everyone who has seen his legitimate mail filtered away knows this, as does everyone who receives spam despite filters being in place. And yet not one of them is able to publish on this failure that withstands any kind of peer review? Really?
As the filtering arms race progresses it will become harder and harder to seperate spam from legitimate mail, resulting in more processing power used and more false negatives and false positives. I don't know what reality you live in but they been attempting "progress" the filtering arms race for years now. They haven't made any progress. We're still using the same tools first inspired by Graham and others and they still adapt and filter just as well.
So, those of you that are too cool for school, be aware that the Alaksa GOP district caucuses were today, and Ron Paul Republicans managed major party platform changes at the district level, which will now move on to state. These included:
- removing the plank opposed to gaming/gambling - rewriting the "war" plank from "we support the Iraq war" to "we opposed all undeclared wars" - promoting the legalization of industrial hemp
What did you do today that compares? Anything that actually changed the world?
...the way to get media coverage is to say things that let them think they won and you're quitting.:-P
No one is quitting anything here. He's making sure the crapweasel running against him for his Congressional seat doesn't get away with the smears he's spreading, several of which appear to have been written by/. trolls.
The campaign in Texas is just getting started, and there's no way the party here is going to go along with 100-years-of-war McCain.
I wrote a pretty long response to this and then decided it was garbage.
I will grant you that the campaign could do a better job giving bullet point plans for specific things.
However, I would suggest that the reason they haven't done this is not so much that they are like every other campaign, but because Ron has been in Congress 20 years and has proposed hundreds of pieces of legislation, and they have too much faith in people doing their own research. It's also true that his message is just simpler than most. He doesn't need a 600-page plan to explain how he's going to leave you alone so you can solve your problems as works best for you instead of as dictated by Washington. The Constitution allows the Federal Government to do very little. This is not a bug, it's a feature.
They did recently summarize his economic recovery plan, with specific bills cited. It's currenetly linked from the top-right corner of his page: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity
For bills he's written on other issues, speeches, etc., see http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ If you can't find what Ron Paul specifically thinks on pretty much any issue, I'd be very surprised. But if that's the case, you can in fact get an answer. Go to a rally and stick around after and ask him. He's famous for not leaving until everyone has a chance to talk to him. His staff hates it because he has a schedule to keep. But I've seen him take the time to answer in detail some pretty off the wall questions. Beyond that, find people near you who are close to the campaign and let them get you an answer. That's one reason I'm in here today. I've already talked to them about trying to get/. to do a followup since people wanted more details, but I don't know if/. will do it or if the campaign will decide it's a place they can afford the time. If we as a demographic (and I'm not a politico, I'm a Linux Sysadmin, thanks for the apology) want more of these people's attention we have to actually turn out the vote. Not because we want them to pander, but because even the best statesmen have limited time and have to make hard choices on where to spend it. If he has to choose to take an hour to talk to voters in a Super Tuesday state or respond to ALIPAC or respond to/., which would you have him choose? He can't do all of them at once.
What, you mean like he ended his crusade for Constitutional government and protecting individual rights back when he lost the other campaigns he ran? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The quitting OR the losing.
We took 2nd in Maine over the weekend as well as previously in NV and LA. 19% popular vote, 35% delegates (at least). We are not going anywhere but up.
The 2001 variant sunset 5 years after going into effect and was reauthorized in 2006. Obama voted for the reauthorization. He spoke eloquently (as usual) about various concerns, included civil liberties, but he still voted for the final reauthorization.
I assume you know he's a medical doctor? He's at least as familiar with medicine as the rest of us. It's not exactly an atypical human trait to not want to take their pills. It doesn't mean he doesn't take them.
The point is that he's NOT into using substances to escape reality at all.
I will give these a try. This is not an official campaign response, but it's also not just a fanboy response; I *have* been sent to represent the campaign before, and am on a first-name basis with the family and campaign. I will also try to get an official response to this but it's kind of Super Tuesday today so most people are working in the field.
Most of these can also be answered via google, anyway.
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Paul is the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate still running, primarily because of the harm done to our economy when people take entitlements they did not contribute to. He is absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and has published a 6-point plan to secure the border, including no amnesty, amendinging the Constitution to make clear children born to illegals here are not citizens, physically securing the border, etc.
That said, he does not oppose legal immigration and primarily sees the problem as economic. He has stated that immigrants are made scapegoats of our current economic problems. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing with entitlements, so we have to fix that first, but once the economy is fixed he has stated the problem would always be too little immigration.
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
We were obviously attacked and I've never heard him say anything remotely otherwise. He has consistently proposed for and voted for legislation to go after the actual perpetrators (al Qaeda) as opposed to random Arabian countries that have oil we'd like to have. He has criticized our interventionist, imperial foreign policy as a strong contributing factor for why people attack us, but regardless of their reasons they need to be brought to justice. Random civilians do not need to be bombed for this to happen.
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
I've never heard him speak to this directly but I would certainly say no. He is the one person running who knows we need to eventually get rid of the entitlements BUT do it in a way that keeps existing people dependent on them from being thrown in the street, and revoking their basic rights is not consistent with his approach. We need to cut our imperial spending and take care of things at home, while promoting better policies for the future (as in letting kids opt-out of social security, while still paying back those that paid in already).
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
None, though private property owners set the policy on their own property.
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
What softball? Ron Paul of course believes the Federal government has run roughshod over the Constitution. He never votes for unconstitutional legislation and as President would veto it. He has stated that he would veto any budget that contained unconstitutional spending. The one place for "wiggle room" here is going to be his above approach to not throw people used to entitlements out onto the str
I am a coordinator of the Ron Paul Grassroots efforts in DFW, Texas. And my/. UID length is real, I didn't buy this account.
We're all pretty busy, which is one reason these answers are so short. I did see them before they were published, but not in time to get them to beef them up some, or I would have. Yes, they didn't get who they were talking to necessarily. At the same time,/. is not really a huge voting bloc, and they have dozens of interviews like this they are trying to respond to right now.
Anyway, like I said, busy, but I can watch this thread some today and try to help clarify things for people. I won't claim my answers are the campaign's but I have represented them at events in the past and speak to people in the campaign and the Paul family daily so I have at least some claim to being able to get it right.
Ron Paul himself does not want to smoke pot. You're talking about a guy who doesn't even like to take meds when they're prescribed (I happen to know his family, this isn't just a fanboy respose).
But he's a firm believer that federal government regulation of this stuff does way more harm than any good it could possibly do. People have to ultimately be responsible for their own actions, and if they are sick they need help, not to be put in prison.
Of course, the thing with Ron Paul is that given how consistent he has been over the years, pretty much anyone who has followed him can answer questions for him without fear of getting it wrong.
For what it's worth I work with the grassroots campaign here in TX and saw these answers before they were published, I'm pretty busy but will try to stay around this thread and help clarify things if needed.
Because the modern Libertarian party is largely made up of people who parted ways with the Republicans when the Republicans abandoned the same ideals. Ron Paul did part with them as well, then came back in 94 hoping they were serious about getting back to small government. They weren't, but he's stayed anyway to continue to try to remind the party who they used to be. Is he somehow wrong for doing that? He hasn't compromised his votes or positions or anything.
As for fund raising *ability*, he doesn't appear to lack that at all. He's managed to out-raise his opponents for his Congressional seat fairly often, and does so with many small private donations instead of a few large corporate ones. Whether that will scale for a national election remains to be seen. So far he's getting more money than anyone expected, and beyond that getting more popular support than even the money would predict.
Because the definition of the parties changes over time, and Paul's view is that he is one of the last remaining Goldwater-era Republicans. The Republicans originated as a centralized government party under Lincoln, then later switched to a small government party ala Goldwater, and in recent years have moved back to centralization and on to outright totalitarianism. Many from that Goldwater school got fed up and became Libertarians, but Paul sees himself working inside the party to pull it back there. History is replete with similar examples of people unwilling to give up on their organization instead of working to restore it.
You're certainly free to think bigger government will help make it slow down, but when the office of the President creates such broad powers for itself and the Congress and Court won't stop it, we end up with a very efficient single office that does what it wants. In other words, it's not working right now. Big government or small, we have to restore the basic rule of law to have anything but a King's whims ruling us. Ron Paul is the *only* candidate whose record *proves* he is truly interested in restoring the rule of law, and people are fed up enough he's actually getting traction.
Yes, the fact that he is operating inside one of the two parties that don't have to fight just for the right to compete is certainly helping this effort, but that's not the only reason he's there. He's been elected for 10 terms as a Republican by a Republican district. There are still small-l-libertarian-Goldwater Republicans around, even though many have since left the party to be big-L-Libertarians.
If you're going to respond in this thread, I for one would really like to see you address the questions about technical depth of Hyperic. What we are tired of is the "use Hyperic because Nagios is hard" ad homenims. There's no meat behind them. Even if we grant Nagios is hard (which IMO is baseless, but whatever), if Hyperic can't do what we need, and Nagios can, who cares? There is such a thing as necessary complexity.
I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm doing it all wrong now if you can give a rationale for a better way, but so far I don't see anything resembling a rational argument.
You know, I was reasonably interested in Hyperic and ZenOSS when they were first announced. Competition is good, and though I'm quite happy with what I've been doing with Netsaint and then Nagios (yes, "in the Enterprise"), I was glad to look at them and see what new things they brought to the table.
So far I've been utterly disgusted by the FUD and BS you guys are spewing, and I've lost about all interest in caring what you think you're bringing to the table. I've yet to hear any of you actually do a meaningful technical comparison beyond "uh, Nagios is like, hard, you know?" and "ZOMG 30 minutes, auto-discovery FTW!!!11!". Well, guess what: if you only have 30 minutes to spend configuring your monitoring solution "in the Enterprise", you're pretty well doomed to spend a lot more time than that dealing with false alerts (both positive and negative) and irate users and admins. Knowing you have an apache server on port 8080 of server X is about 2% of the problem. It's a lot more important to know what application sits there and what other services and hosts it depends on so you can implement sane end-to-end monitoring that can do a full test of actual application functionality and if something is broken tell you which part of the tree actually has the problem, not just "oh noes teh port 8080 is down!!" (or better yet, "teh port 8080 is up!! no problemz!!" when the app you actually care about is returning a dead page instead of processing data). So tell me: is all this also "cake" under Hyperic? And if so, how is it "objectively better" done than Nagios does it?
Auto-discovery is a marketing feature, but if that's all some inexperienced admin thinks they need it's not even hard to do with the 80 Nagios helper utilities that do it for you. As for a "pluggable framework", you'd be very hard-pressed to demonstrate anything more flexible than Nagios. Hell, we've been known to use it to monitor business processes and workflow efficiencies. But please do at least try, and stop talking liking a marketdroid.
The predictions were that it wasn't feasible but the evidence from multiple quarters hasn't supported that so far. I'm not sure anyone has published anything on *why* that might be yet, but it is probable that there are population size break points between which legit mail is relatively homogenous enough to still be distinguishable from spam. In our environment the filter can tell the difference between wanted and unwanted mails coming from the same opt-in vendor newsletter to multiple business recipients.
If you guys had a DFW office I might be convinced to come show you.;-)
And self-updating classifiers are Russian roulette.
Yeah, this is pretty well understood by the content filtering community. The spam problem was solved several years ago, but most administraters still refuse to do any of their own work to implement a working solution and expect someone else to give them a button to push to solve it. Hence the arms race.
It works for you because you spent hours doing research and training. It works for everyone else who does the same thing. Despite the "common knowledge" that "bayesian filters can be beaten", no one has yet published any evidence demonstrating that a properly-configured filter can be beaten in any significant degree without making ridiculous, easily-defeatable assumptions.
Complaints that setting these filters up correctly are "too hard" are ridiculous when you compare the time most people spend day after day trying to stay ahead of the arms race vs. the up front time needed to configure a decent content filter and then leave it alone. Even the ongoing training can be (mostly) automated. And false positives are just more indication the filter isn't configured correctly.
This bit from TFA:
"Statistical (bayesian) scanning is easily defeated by randomization; numerous techniques exist to avoid keyword-based detection and new methods surface regularly. Content scanning is also known to suffer from false positives."
is particulary absurd, since anyone who knows anything about Bayesian Classifiers knows that _random_ words are never going to show any statistical significance at all unless your normal, legit mail flow is also comprised of the same "random" words. NBCs look for statistically significant anamolies, they aren't fooled by mere randomness.
Do spammers try to poison Bayesian filters with random words? Yes, certainly. Has anyone demonstrated real, verifiable evidence that this has any effect at all against properly configured filters? No. But people are so used to losing, they assume they've lost once they see the attempt.
Because my kids would love to watch Superman but would have nightmares for months if they watched the bits with Lois Lane suffocating to death as she's buried alive. At their age they don't need to see that, they can just see Superman saving the world. When they're older they can handle the other bits.
For another example, consider The Princess Bride. A great movie in general for them, but a year ago the ROUS scene was too much for them. This year they can handle that, but still not the sequences with the Machine or the sword fight to the death.
A final example, Star Wars Episode One. They love it but I don't let them (yet) watch Qui-Gon get run through. They get that he dies and they're starting to appreciate what that means, they don't yet need to see the brutal reality of it.
For a lot of us it's just a question of letting our kids experience fantasy and heros saving the day without also making them experience nightmares. They'll grow into appreciating the whole deal but for now they're only equipped to handle certain parts of it.
At the shelters I deployed labs at, people were most definitely using these to find housing and jobs. But only after they'd put their names in the survivor registries and searched for their loved ones in those same registries. No one was really ready to move on until they'd at least tried to find the people they were missing, and that wasn't really possible without internet access.
Why would we care if someone leaves "our" OS in favour or something they like better? People should use what suits them best. Better to have several choices out there instead of one OS that suits everyone. That way lies mediocrity for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
And for what it's worth, my settings since I bought the phone have been:
/var/context/contextfile, the first line is "{ "Location": false }". Every other line in there is an app start/stop time.
Auto Locate: Off. You will be asked for authorization when an application requests your location.
(I get prompted each time I start any app that wants my location. I can say no, and it starts with "limited functionality", like requiring me to type in a zip code for movie searches manually.)
Use GPS: Off
(I turn it on when I need to use it. Privacy and battery life concerns. Due to the latter, I know it's off when I turn it off.)
Background Data Collection: Off
(Based on someone else's post, I would guess this is Google using GPS coordinates and cell tower info to figure out where the cell towers are so they can provide location services without GPS active.)
I don' t have a Geotag Photos option.
Checking the current
That doesn't mean it doesn't start up the GPS when it crashes to find coordinates to report, or anything... but I'd be curious what Joey's settings were here.
There are several problems with that thesis. There are indeed several problems with that thesis, but that's not the one he's presented; it's a strawman.
The thesis is rather:
1. Content filters work, and no one has yet demonstrated they can be seriously subverted when correctly applied.
2. Delivery-based countermeasures do not work, and only promote an arms race that will only end when airlines chain passengers naked to their seats. Er, sorry, I mixed two up there. Whatever. Content filtering doesn't work well. Prove it. No, really, please do. Everyone who has seen his legitimate mail filtered away knows this, as does everyone who receives spam despite filters being in place. And yet not one of them is able to publish on this failure that withstands any kind of peer review? Really? As the filtering arms race progresses it will become harder and harder to seperate spam from legitimate mail, resulting in more processing power used and more false negatives and false positives. I don't know what reality you live in but they been attempting "progress" the filtering arms race for years now. They haven't made any progress. We're still using the same tools first inspired by Graham and others and they still adapt and filter just as well.
So, those of you that are too cool for school, be aware that the Alaksa GOP district caucuses were today, and Ron Paul Republicans managed major party platform changes at the district level, which will now move on to state. These included:
- removing the plank opposed to gaming/gambling
- rewriting the "war" plank from "we support the Iraq war" to "we opposed all undeclared wars"
- promoting the legalization of industrial hemp
What did you do today that compares? Anything that actually changed the world?
...the way to get media coverage is to say things that let them think they won and you're quitting. :-P
/. trolls.
No one is quitting anything here. He's making sure the crapweasel running against him for his Congressional seat doesn't get away with the smears he's spreading, several of which appear to have been written by
The campaign in Texas is just getting started, and there's no way the party here is going to go along with 100-years-of-war McCain.
I wrote a pretty long response to this and then decided it was garbage.
/. to do a followup since people wanted more details, but I don't know if /. will do it or if the campaign will decide it's a place they can afford the time. If we as a demographic (and I'm not a politico, I'm a Linux Sysadmin, thanks for the apology) want more of these people's attention we have to actually turn out the vote. Not because we want them to pander, but because even the best statesmen have limited time and have to make hard choices on where to spend it. If he has to choose to take an hour to talk to voters in a Super Tuesday state or respond to ALIPAC or respond to /., which would you have him choose? He can't do all of them at once.
I will grant you that the campaign could do a better job giving bullet point plans for specific things.
However, I would suggest that the reason they haven't done this is not so much that they are like every other campaign, but because Ron has been in Congress 20 years and has proposed hundreds of pieces of legislation, and they have too much faith in people doing their own research. It's also true that his message is just simpler than most. He doesn't need a 600-page plan to explain how he's going to leave you alone so you can solve your problems as works best for you instead of as dictated by Washington. The Constitution allows the Federal Government to do very little. This is not a bug, it's a feature.
They did recently summarize his economic recovery plan, with specific bills cited. It's currenetly linked from the top-right corner of his page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity
For bills he's written on other issues, speeches, etc., see http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ If you can't find what Ron Paul specifically thinks on pretty much any issue, I'd be very surprised. But if that's the case, you can in fact get an answer. Go to a rally and stick around after and ask him. He's famous for not leaving until everyone has a chance to talk to him. His staff hates it because he has a schedule to keep. But I've seen him take the time to answer in detail some pretty off the wall questions. Beyond that, find people near you who are close to the campaign and let them get you an answer. That's one reason I'm in here today. I've already talked to them about trying to get
What, you mean like he ended his crusade for Constitutional government and protecting individual rights back when he lost the other campaigns he ran? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The quitting OR the losing.
We took 2nd in Maine over the weekend as well as previously in NV and LA. 19% popular vote, 35% delegates (at least). We are not going anywhere but up.
email sent
The 2001 variant sunset 5 years after going into effect and was reauthorized in 2006. Obama voted for the reauthorization. He spoke eloquently (as usual) about various concerns, included civil liberties, but he still voted for the final reauthorization.
I assume you know he's a medical doctor? He's at least as familiar with medicine as the rest of us. It's not exactly an atypical human trait to not want to take their pills. It doesn't mean he doesn't take them.
The point is that he's NOT into using substances to escape reality at all.
I will give these a try. This is not an official campaign response, but it's also not just a fanboy response; I *have* been sent to represent the campaign before, and am on a first-name basis with the family and campaign. I will also try to get an official response to this but it's kind of Super Tuesday today so most people are working in the field.
Most of these can also be answered via google, anyway.
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Paul is the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate still running, primarily because of the harm done to our economy when people take entitlements they did not contribute to. He is absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and has published a 6-point plan to secure the border, including no amnesty, amendinging the Constitution to make clear children born to illegals here are not citizens, physically securing the border, etc.
That said, he does not oppose legal immigration and primarily sees the problem as economic. He has stated that immigrants are made scapegoats of our current economic problems. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing with entitlements, so we have to fix that first, but once the economy is fixed he has stated the problem would always be too little immigration.
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
I think this is included in the second half of the answer above; for more information on things Ron Paul has consistently said on immigration see here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Immigration
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
We were obviously attacked and I've never heard him say anything remotely otherwise. He has consistently proposed for and voted for legislation to go after the actual perpetrators (al Qaeda) as opposed to random Arabian countries that have oil we'd like to have. He has criticized our interventionist, imperial foreign policy as a strong contributing factor for why people attack us, but regardless of their reasons they need to be brought to justice. Random civilians do not need to be bombed for this to happen.
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
I've never heard him speak to this directly but I would certainly say no. He is the one person running who knows we need to eventually get rid of the entitlements BUT do it in a way that keeps existing people dependent on them from being thrown in the street, and revoking their basic rights is not consistent with his approach. We need to cut our imperial spending and take care of things at home, while promoting better policies for the future (as in letting kids opt-out of social security, while still paying back those that paid in already).
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
None, though private property owners set the policy on their own property.
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
What softball? Ron Paul of course believes the Federal government has run roughshod over the Constitution. He never votes for unconstitutional legislation and as President would veto it. He has stated that he would veto any budget that contained unconstitutional spending. The one place for "wiggle room" here is going to be his above approach to not throw people used to entitlements out onto the str
I am a coordinator of the Ron Paul Grassroots efforts in DFW, Texas. And my /. UID length is real, I didn't buy this account.
/. is not really a huge voting bloc, and they have dozens of interviews like this they are trying to respond to right now.
We're all pretty busy, which is one reason these answers are so short. I did see them before they were published, but not in time to get them to beef them up some, or I would have. Yes, they didn't get who they were talking to necessarily. At the same time,
Anyway, like I said, busy, but I can watch this thread some today and try to help clarify things for people. I won't claim my answers are the campaign's but I have represented them at events in the past and speak to people in the campaign and the Paul family daily so I have at least some claim to being able to get it right.
g) voted for the PATRIOT ACT
Well he told the kids at USC that if given the opportunity he would recommend the release of non-violent drug offenders, what more do you want?
Ron Paul himself does not want to smoke pot. You're talking about a guy who doesn't even like to take meds when they're prescribed (I happen to know his family, this isn't just a fanboy respose).
But he's a firm believer that federal government regulation of this stuff does way more harm than any good it could possibly do. People have to ultimately be responsible for their own actions, and if they are sick they need help, not to be put in prison.
Of course, the thing with Ron Paul is that given how consistent he has been over the years, pretty much anyone who has followed him can answer questions for him without fear of getting it wrong.
For what it's worth I work with the grassroots campaign here in TX and saw these answers before they were published, I'm pretty busy but will try to stay around this thread and help clarify things if needed.
Because the modern Libertarian party is largely made up of people who parted ways with the Republicans when the Republicans abandoned the same ideals. Ron Paul did part with them as well, then came back in 94 hoping they were serious about getting back to small government. They weren't, but he's stayed anyway to continue to try to remind the party who they used to be. Is he somehow wrong for doing that? He hasn't compromised his votes or positions or anything.
As for fund raising *ability*, he doesn't appear to lack that at all. He's managed to out-raise his opponents for his Congressional seat fairly often, and does so with many small private donations instead of a few large corporate ones. Whether that will scale for a national election remains to be seen. So far he's getting more money than anyone expected, and beyond that getting more popular support than even the money would predict.
Because the definition of the parties changes over time, and Paul's view is that he is one of the last remaining Goldwater-era Republicans. The Republicans originated as a centralized government party under Lincoln, then later switched to a small government party ala Goldwater, and in recent years have moved back to centralization and on to outright totalitarianism. Many from that Goldwater school got fed up and became Libertarians, but Paul sees himself working inside the party to pull it back there. History is replete with similar examples of people unwilling to give up on their organization instead of working to restore it.
You're certainly free to think bigger government will help make it slow down, but when the office of the President creates such broad powers for itself and the Congress and Court won't stop it, we end up with a very efficient single office that does what it wants. In other words, it's not working right now. Big government or small, we have to restore the basic rule of law to have anything but a King's whims ruling us. Ron Paul is the *only* candidate whose record *proves* he is truly interested in restoring the rule of law, and people are fed up enough he's actually getting traction.
Yes, the fact that he is operating inside one of the two parties that don't have to fight just for the right to compete is certainly helping this effort, but that's not the only reason he's there. He's been elected for 10 terms as a Republican by a Republican district. There are still small-l-libertarian-Goldwater Republicans around, even though many have since left the party to be big-L-Libertarians.
If you're going to respond in this thread, I for one would really like to see you address the questions about technical depth of Hyperic. What we are tired of is the "use Hyperic because Nagios is hard" ad homenims. There's no meat behind them. Even if we grant Nagios is hard (which IMO is baseless, but whatever), if Hyperic can't do what we need, and Nagios can, who cares? There is such a thing as necessary complexity.
7 07053 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230333&cid=187 03061 and tell us how Hyperic does the kinds of intelligent state handling and end-to-end monitoring described there. And if Hyperic doesn't do or allow for those things, tell us why we should use it anyway.
So look at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230333&cid=18
I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm doing it all wrong now if you can give a rationale for a better way, but so far I don't see anything resembling a rational argument.
You know, I was reasonably interested in Hyperic and ZenOSS when they were first announced. Competition is good, and though I'm quite happy with what I've been doing with Netsaint and then Nagios (yes, "in the Enterprise"), I was glad to look at them and see what new things they brought to the table.
So far I've been utterly disgusted by the FUD and BS you guys are spewing, and I've lost about all interest in caring what you think you're bringing to the table. I've yet to hear any of you actually do a meaningful technical comparison beyond "uh, Nagios is like, hard, you know?" and "ZOMG 30 minutes, auto-discovery FTW!!!11!". Well, guess what: if you only have 30 minutes to spend configuring your monitoring solution "in the Enterprise", you're pretty well doomed to spend a lot more time than that dealing with false alerts (both positive and negative) and irate users and admins. Knowing you have an apache server on port 8080 of server X is about 2% of the problem. It's a lot more important to know what application sits there and what other services and hosts it depends on so you can implement sane end-to-end monitoring that can do a full test of actual application functionality and if something is broken tell you which part of the tree actually has the problem, not just "oh noes teh port 8080 is down!!" (or better yet, "teh port 8080 is up!! no problemz!!" when the app you actually care about is returning a dead page instead of processing data). So tell me: is all this also "cake" under Hyperic? And if so, how is it "objectively better" done than Nagios does it?
Auto-discovery is a marketing feature, but if that's all some inexperienced admin thinks they need it's not even hard to do with the 80 Nagios helper utilities that do it for you. As for a "pluggable framework", you'd be very hard-pressed to demonstrate anything more flexible than Nagios. Hell, we've been known to use it to monitor business processes and workflow efficiencies. But please do at least try, and stop talking liking a marketdroid.
Site-wide can work. It just takes some extra tuning considerations. See e.g. http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa04/tech/blosser.h tml
;-)
The predictions were that it wasn't feasible but the evidence from multiple quarters hasn't supported that so far. I'm not sure anyone has published anything on *why* that might be yet, but it is probable that there are population size break points between which legit mail is relatively homogenous enough to still be distinguishable from spam. In our environment the filter can tell the difference between wanted and unwanted mails coming from the same opt-in vendor newsletter to multiple business recipients.
If you guys had a DFW office I might be convinced to come show you.
And self-updating classifiers are Russian roulette.
Yeah, this is pretty well understood by the content filtering community. The spam problem was solved several years ago, but most administraters still refuse to do any of their own work to implement a working solution and expect someone else to give them a button to push to solve it. Hence the arms race.
It works for you because you spent hours doing research and training. It works for everyone else who does the same thing. Despite the "common knowledge" that "bayesian filters can be beaten", no one has yet published any evidence demonstrating that a properly-configured filter can be beaten in any significant degree without making ridiculous, easily-defeatable assumptions.
Complaints that setting these filters up correctly are "too hard" are ridiculous when you compare the time most people spend day after day trying to stay ahead of the arms race vs. the up front time needed to configure a decent content filter and then leave it alone. Even the ongoing training can be (mostly) automated. And false positives are just more indication the filter isn't configured correctly.
This bit from TFA:
"Statistical (bayesian) scanning is easily defeated by randomization; numerous techniques exist to avoid keyword-based detection and new methods surface regularly. Content scanning is also known to suffer from false positives."
is particulary absurd, since anyone who knows anything about Bayesian Classifiers knows that _random_ words are never going to show any statistical significance at all unless your normal, legit mail flow is also comprised of the same "random" words. NBCs look for statistically significant anamolies, they aren't fooled by mere randomness.
Do spammers try to poison Bayesian filters with random words? Yes, certainly. Has anyone demonstrated real, verifiable evidence that this has any effect at all against properly configured filters? No. But people are so used to losing, they assume they've lost once they see the attempt.
Because my kids would love to watch Superman but would have nightmares for months if they watched the bits with Lois Lane suffocating to death as she's buried alive. At their age they don't need to see that, they can just see Superman saving the world. When they're older they can handle the other bits.
For another example, consider The Princess Bride. A great movie in general for them, but a year ago the ROUS scene was too much for them. This year they can handle that, but still not the sequences with the Machine or the sword fight to the death.
A final example, Star Wars Episode One. They love it but I don't let them (yet) watch Qui-Gon get run through. They get that he dies and they're starting to appreciate what that means, they don't yet need to see the brutal reality of it.
For a lot of us it's just a question of letting our kids experience fantasy and heros saving the day without also making them experience nightmares. They'll grow into appreciating the whole deal but for now they're only equipped to handle certain parts of it.
At the shelters I deployed labs at, people were most definitely using these to find housing and jobs. But only after they'd put their names in the survivor registries and searched for their loved ones in those same registries. No one was really ready to move on until they'd at least tried to find the people they were missing, and that wasn't really possible without internet access.
Why would we care if someone leaves "our" OS in favour or something they like better? People should use what suits them best. Better to have several choices out there instead of one OS that suits everyone. That way lies mediocrity for everyone.
That "test" was far from being either good or scientific. Critique here: http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/cormack.html
And if you're going to rebut the critique, please use actual data and not just something like "he must be biased".