How much time do you have to study on issues and events?
The "accidental theorists" will tell you that this all came as a big shock. Those same people will tell you that despite having massive think tanks and the highest levels of education available, politicians "never saw that coming" on just about any event in history. You know, like Reagan never realized that "Trickle Down" would benefit the rich much more than the poor that was just a big 'Whoops!' which has been policy since the 1980s. None of them ever guessed that arming, funding, and training "terrorists" would come back to bite us in the ass so we continue that policy for at least the same duration of time.
None of this was surprising, except that people have had almost no reaction to it. People have been warning about the state we are currently in since I was a little kid. The take over of media was planned, and took time. People warned about the dangers and were silenced. I'm sure that the accidental theorist would claim that was yet another "whoops" but lets be real. Accidental theory is completely irrational and illogical.
If you really and truly want to answer your question, jump back and read a book by Gary Allen called "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". Take every fact he provides in the book and check it for truthfulness, you will find nothing inaccurate. That book will point you to other sources to read, which will begin to map out a nice web of people that will answer your question.
You can choose the red pill or the blue pill, but if you take the red pill there is no turning back and your life will never be the same.
So the opinions used to form the Constitution and create the wording can't be used to determine your opinion of the meaning of the Constitution? Are you really trying to make that claim?
My reaction would have been much more polite if you had actually read and commented on the facts presented, instead of making up your own fairy tales to approve of a government action.
They did not ask her about criminal history in the last 10 years, read TFA! They asked her "if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights." . Good grief man, reading is not that fucking difficult. The dismissal was based on a claim that she lied, because a group she was a member of 35 years ago was affiliated with a group that committed an act of terrorism 1 year after she stopped affiliating with the first groups. (emphasis mine)
Take the same logic to people. If you met someone in college and hung out 35 years ago, and 34 years ago that person met someone that committed a terrorist act you would have to know to claim "yup, I know someone affiliated with a terrorist" when asked the question today. And when you answer "no" they will grill you on that acquaintance from 35 years ago as if you had ESP and could know that they knew someone that committed a terrorist act a year after you last talked to them.
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
She was not a member of a "terrorist group", but rather a member of groups claimed by someone to be affiliated. Further, the alleged acts of terrorism occurred a year after she was even involved in those 2nd hand groups.
According to the article, she did not lie either.
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
and
After again being asked if she had been a member of any organization that espoused violence, Barr was grilled for 4.5 hours about her knowledge of all three organizations and several individuals with ties to them, including the persons who tried to rob the Brink’s truck. (Four people were found guilty of murder in that attack and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Kathy Boudin, who was released in 2003 and is now an adjunct assistant professor of social work at Columbia University.) “I found out about the Brink’s robbery by hearing it on the news, and just like everybody else I was shocked,” she recalls.
Which of course corroborates her story more than the feds who removed her from the position.
In other words, yet another example of people abusing power.
Fear mongering is almost never all conjecture, but that does not make it something other than fear mongering. The reality is that fear mongering has been a known control tactic for centuries.
It's one thing to have a rational discussion about potential issues, it's quite another to use intentional rhetoric to make problems exist that don't, or make very minor (extremely rare) problems that do exist seem much worse than they are.
The problem with your statement about stamping out a current "threat" is that it provides additional channels for overreach. I quoted "threat" intentionally, because the chances of a home grown anthrax causing any damage at all is akin to a home grown nuclear bomb causing damage. The cost of having and maintaining a home laboratory that can create something truly a threat is not obtainable by the majority of people, in fact the people that could afford such a lab and equipment are rare.
And lets just say that Jimmy somehow creates a new strain of flu. He has to contain it, weaponize it, and disperse it. These are not small or cheap feats to accomplish.
We already have Government agencies (DHS, ATF, FBI, etc..) that are already able to search out people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lab equipment and materials. We already have laws that protect society from people making such weapons, and using such weapons..
On the lighter side, maybe some additional regulations would get some companies to clean out those bioweapons growing in their fridges on occasion.
It was hair splitting, and now you moved the goal post. The issue you just raised is explicit situation which again has nothing to do with splitting Workstation loads into a different category from Servers.
If you are booting OS binaries from a Wireless network with low signal strength you are either an extremely rare military situation or you are an idiot.
Yeah, I saw the same bit on "The Daily Show". Sad that we get more "News" and contrary opinion from a comedy show than we get on 5-7 hours of what is called "news" broadcasting on 7 different networks.
You called out the exact difference between a workstation and a server (your 2nd paragraph), and nowhere does it require a different set of installation media, different kernel, or different init system. Packages are the difference.
To your point about classification, there is a reason that no tool exists for "tuning" to even a class of machine. DB is too broad, so if I tune for Oracle and happen to be running HANNA my server is going to be crippled. If I'm using local 15K disk vs. SAN vs. NFS for a DB, most of my tunings change while the DB may remain the same.
This is why software vendors provide tuning guidelines, but not tuning rules. Some of the very high end applications may not run if a tuning is too low, but they are not giving you a complete sysctl.conf file to run. They give you recommendations, and everything else is up to a good SA to figure out and implement.
Your argument is not valid, you are simply attempting to split hairs. A different init does not make a lick of difference between Server or Workstation. Mainly for the reasons I stated above: Most testing and development is done on workstations, then moved to DEV servers, then to QA servers, and then to production. Any time tweaking is required, those almost always start on a "workstation". Even if it's not (I have seen companies with very strict "you can only do this on a server policy) you run into a cost issue trying to support two different technologies for the same thing.
The init system, as I also stated, will be handled by the market. Personally, I like traditional init. "inittab" is very clear on usage, and bootstrapping applications can be highly customized. It's also easily customized on the fly.
I did not mind the Sun implementation of a new init system, because it fully supported old init style scripts. Most applications don't need an init daemon monitoring and trying to restart them when problems occur, that is what a monitoring system and competent SA team is for.
I agree with you totally, but felt the need to add quite a bit.
Desktop workloads and server workloads have different needs, and it's high time Linux consider a split to more adequately address them, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia.
That statement reeks of an agenda. Linux has had the ability to run as a Server or a Workstation or both for as long as I can remember. The guy making said claim is an idiot, and I'll offer evidence to prove it.
What makes it a "Server" versus "Workstation"?
If you claim "Tuning", I'll tell you that every server gets tuned differently. An Oracle DB server gets totally different tuning from my SunOne LDAP servers, which are both different from Squid Proxies, which are all different than SMTP servers, and all of those are tuned differently than CAE or GPU simulation. Each of those tunings will be different depending on the hardware the OS is running on. 10Gb NICs get different tuning than 1Gb NICs, or Oracle on 128Gb memory vs. PAMCrash on 128Gb memory for two easy examples. If you make a "server" package with predefined tuning it will be for 1 application stack, and will probably the wrong tunings.
Further, these same tunings are also done on a Workstation all the time. Most often, this is for development and testing the changes. Just like most "server" applications are generally run for the same reasons on Workstations. So the goal of the author to split to Server/Workstation is a failure without any further consideration, and completely idiotic since it would require development, QA, and SA teams to buy more and more hardware.
Let's look at a couple other claims. SystemD vs. Init. Big whoop! That won't make a server different from a workstation either, Unix requires some type of initialization system. Different Distros may adapt different INIT systems, I'll pick the distro I find works best. The market and time will fix all problems with that one.
I suggested this possibility last week when discussing systemd (or that FreeBSD could see higher server adoption), but it's more than systemd coming into play here. It's from the bootloader all the way up.
Ahh, now that's the payload statement right there. Someone has the belief that if there is more fragmentation things will turn out their way, or that the threat of fragmentation will make things their way.
Sorry pal, that's not how things work. If you want to make your own distro, go to town. You can control every aspect from systemd (or not) to what packages and package manager you run, to what tunings you are providing out of the box. If it's a good distro, people will follow along and help you out. If it sucks ass for most users, you will be on your own with your own custom distro that nobody uses.
As I said above, your suggesting that Linux should be split is simply wrong. In fact it's provably wrong. Go look at Distro history. As soon as Distros start to strip things people need from their packages, people leave and find a new Distro. With the exception of Lindows who was sued out of existence by Microsoft, (and perhaps a couple others) thousands of Distros vanished or brick walled because some dickhead control freak(s) said "My way or the Highway" and started supporting only what they wanted instead of what the users needed.
Yes, they absolutely were. The only way to get raises these days is to find a new job, no this is not restricted to Silicon Valley. If you sit in the same job you will be lucky to get a wage increase close to the cost of living increase each year. This particular illegal activity restricted people from getting new higher paying jobs, for years. Even if they were qualified for the jobs (which these same companies claim don't exist and lobby for increases in H1B people).
The 60,000 people that were impacted by this particular crime will see maybe 1,000.00, so the punishment is not severe enough. The judge should cap the attorney fees on this and quadruple the fine to ensure fair compensation for the people harmed by these criminal acts.
If this sounds harsh, consider that some of the executives responsible are making 100 times the wage of the employees harmed by their crimes. Perhaps they should get fired and face personal liability to their previous employers for their criminal activities.
And we all know that viruses never mutate quickly, so we have a long time before we worry about that being false.. *sigh*
I'm not for the Government doing this at all, but the reasons are fiscal and not emotional. Our national debt is massive and expanding due to all these great opportunities to piss away money we don't have.
How about normal fundraisers like we do for everything else? If people have it, they tend to give it if they believe the cause is good and the recipient is trustworthy (often even without a trusted recipient).
First, lets remove the term STEM from the conversation as that is a classification of graduate, not a classification for Education System.
Education systems are the real problem, or at least what we are using as an education system. Your statement regarding a lack of convergent thinking is real problem, and is a direct result of our current education system. Our current system is based on the Prussian education system. This system was designed with the purpose of making soldiers smart enough to calculate and fire artillery, but not smart enough to question authority. Beat math into the persons head, but ignore Philosophy (ethics, morality, critical thinking). This system has been refined further and further since the US started pushing this as the education method in the 1930s (in fairness the biggest transitions started in the 40s).
When we moved to the Prussian system, we dumped the Classical education system. The "Classical" education system was improved over thousands of years. The curriculum was updated as we made progress, Alchemy being replaced by Chemistry for example. The focus of this system was to start with the foundation of critical thought and basic concepts. Rhetoric was taught at a very young age which encouraged dialogue and debate, along with basic math and language (reading/writing/spelling, etc...) Students took classes which advanced in a logical progression. If you teach someone Algebra at the same time as Physics, Algebra makes more sense. Teach someone music, and I mean actually teach them how the wave forms behave, and Trig makes more sense (music is the topic). Teaching ethics and morality at the same time as history provides the means to better evaluate future decisions.
Further, we have some good science backing how music directly impacts our thoughts. Certain sounds, patterns, and rhythms can cause the brain to produce chemicals that can enhance learning, or increase aggression, etc.. Teaching this along with music would certainly be of benefit to students.
So yea, music needs to be added back into schools. Our education system should be fully evaluated and revamped. Many teachers try and teach critical thought, so the problems we see are not related necessarily to teachers. Making teachers and students cram constantly for the next test has impacted even the best teachers. Teachers are evaluated on how well their students take the government mandated tests, not how well they can actually teach students.
Some terms to study outside of "Classical education" and "Prussian education" are the Trivium and Quadrivium.
What you mention is I believe symptom of other problems, not a problem by itself. To run down why science is currently being operated this way would be rather extensive so I'll cover the biggies.
1) IP Laws have allowed certain entities to own ideas, and patent trolls to buy patents in bulk for no other purpose than to milk innovators if a product becomes successful. Remember that success can also include causing damage to a competing product, so the "success" is related to the patent owner and not society or the science. This has dissuaded sharing of science (collaboration) that up until very recent times was very normal and healthy for progress.
2) Massive government and bureaucratic control of public funding. This has allowed "pet" project funding in place of what benefits society. In fact many projects are only to benefit the bureaucrats at the detriment of society.
3) Same massive government does not understand science to uses measures which are invalid and unrealistic to maintain science programs.
Everyone else including Universities are playing the games. There are many motives for this, and in many cases playing along is the only way to get funding.
Do you really believe that it's working any differently? Look who funds him (the same big banks he promised to prosecute), look who he attacks (whistle blowers and liberty minded individuals), and look at his list of accomplishments (the US is a whole lot more fucked up today than it was when he was elected either time).
Being a citizen and having a responsibility as a citizen does not come around once every 4 years. You are _always_ a citizen and should _always_ be responsible. I know you have not always quit when you met failure. You learned how to feed yourself, you learned how to write, and those things were miserable failures your first try. You kept going, and look at the result. Take that same persistence to your civic duties and be amazed at the result!
"We" is the US and it's citizens which are responsible for putting politicians in office. "We" are responsible for educating people in society about basic concepts like Liberty and Freedom, and what a Republic is supposed to be. "We" are responsible for warning and educating people to tyranny and where it has taken hold in the US. "We" are responsible for demanding an end to the escalation of the Police state within our borders and the lack of protecting the same. "We" are responsible to take action, and "We" have not yet done so at scale.
I am partially responsible for where we are today, and admit myself as part of the problem. I spend several hours a day doing my part to educate others to issues and educate myself to keep reality in focus. When will "you" admit to yours and do something other than claim it's that other guys fault?
As desirable as it would be in the case if ISIS, wouldn't implementing such kill switches on weapons be as ineffective as DRM for copyrighted material, with undesirable side-effects for "legitimate uses" and plenty of workarounds for "illegitimate" users?
Yes it would, so technology is not the answer. Remember that these are not US weapons we sold to someone through proper channels, which could 'potentially' have legitimate benefit of some type of kill switch. These are weapons that were captured. Why were they captured? Mostly because it was deemed 'too expensive' to move shit out of the country after withdrawing troops, so we 'sold' shit to Iraq and left. Think really long and hard about that one. Then think long and hard about the fact that the US was/is supporting the FSA and other groups aligned with ISIS/ISIL (or whatever the fuck they are being called today).
Yeah yeah, I know.. big shock and the politicians never knew that this would happen...
Who are you trying to kid? Cluster munitions and flame throwers are still in use, they just call them something else. Flame throwers today are white phosphorous munitions instead of a guy with a gas can and match (greatly extending range making it much more convenient the user, in addition to much safer), and the US in particular uses a slang term for cluster bombs of "grenadelettes" (see DPICM Munitions). DU rounds litter Afghanistan and Iraq so we are not too worried about generations of civilian casualties, let alone the damage we do immediately.
Hollow points are not really missed, because we have much worse munitions today for rifles/guns. Tumbling and AP rounds cause much more damage at much greater range and can ignore body armor.
The pretext for use of WP munitions is that you can't target a civilian, the same exact rule for high caliber weapons (.50+ caliber). So we claim to shoot at buildings and vehicles to justify WP use, and for large caliber munitions we claim to aim at their belt buckles or back packs.
I fully agree with you, but searching all over I can find exactly 1 satellite photo claiming to be Russian made armor. Of course the huge problem in claiming this is actually Russian is that nearly every country in Eastern Europe uses Russian made tanks, artillery, helicopters, aircraft, etc... I have see no satellite images that tracked any movement from Russia to the Ukraine.
Don't speculate on the few exceptions to the rule about Russian weapons, you said we can't argue with different facts. I want facts proving that these 10 whole vehicles are both A) Really from Russia and B) really are in the Ukraine. 10 vehicles does not constitute a "full scale invasion" either, no matter what you try to claim. If you are using facts, where is this full scale invasion? Facts please!
Lets also not speculate on Russia building up troops next to the Ukraine. If Mexico was undergoing a massive revolt with lots of military action you can bet your ass that the US would have troops along the Texas and Southern California borders. As a soldier in West Germany (pre-unification) I saw Russian troops all along the East German border, because NATO built up a massive force for an 'exercise' and was operating near the border. So again, these types of activities are _normal_ and _expected_. If you have any doubts ask yourself why every time something happens near a friendly country the US sends huge naval forces into the zone.
I'm not claiming there are no shenanigans by Russia, I'm claiming that you are following the political hype and not looking at facts either. Facts show no such massive invasion, facts show less activity than the US has been using in the Middle East. I have seen no Russian bombers attacking Ukrainian positions, I have seen no columns of mobilized armor like we saw in Georgia, I have seen no cruise missile or rocket attacks.
After I weigh your 'facts' I'll be happy to hold a rational dialogue on opinions. Just remember however that there are numerous 'facts' that don't necessarily back your opinion. Such as Blackwater being in Kiev prior to the coup, and the sniper rounds that were shooting at both the pro government and rebel forces was the same weapon and same armor piercing rounds. A US official was caught collaborating to choose the new leader a few days before the coup. The endowment for democracy spent over 5 billion dollars in the Ukraine prior to the protests starting, etc... etc... In other words, there are plenty of shenanigans to go around.
I'm not trying to claim that Russia is 'good', but did you notice "Monakhov is using twitter to keep people informed about his experience with the Russian judicial system."? I don't know any people in the US that are allowed to keep their cell phones and tweet when arrested. I have seen people told to turn off their phones or be arrested, I have seen cops threaten to kill journalists (see the cop in Fergusson that was suspended for doing so), and I know that protestors that are arrested have their devices confiscated. The only reason we ever see wrong doing in our jails/prisons is due to leaked video from surveillance cameras, not because someone tweeted something.
So is the US a more totalitarian system than Russia? Before you "but the Ukraine" remember that US agencies spent over 5 billion dollars to help the revolt in the Ukraine so bears at least some responsibility for what's happening. Is the Ukraine going be be that much better off under EU control? Has not turned out so well for many in the EU (Greece/Spain/France, and the anti-EU party is huge in the UK today) so you will have to really sell me on that one. That, and this should be the choice of the Ukrainians as a whole.
These are complex issues so the answers are complex. Something to consider is that since I have been alive the US has been involved in more wars and killed more people than any other country on the planet. Many of the known conflicts were started on complete fabrications (Vietnam, 2nd Iraq). Would ISIL be as big of a problem today if the US was not funding and arming rebels in Syria, had not armed and funded rebels in Libya (and even provided air cover and bombed targets? Would we have so many problems if we were not continually killing innocent people when trying to assassinate alleged terrorist leaders? Would we have so many problems in the middle east if we had not armed, funded, and trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the late 80s?
The point here is that the US is not just an altruistic police force, simply helping those in need. We should be questioning these issues at a much deeper level than just repeating talking points.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did 9/11 bring such a change in our freedoms?
How much time do you have to study on issues and events?
The "accidental theorists" will tell you that this all came as a big shock. Those same people will tell you that despite having massive think tanks and the highest levels of education available, politicians "never saw that coming" on just about any event in history. You know, like Reagan never realized that "Trickle Down" would benefit the rich much more than the poor that was just a big 'Whoops!' which has been policy since the 1980s. None of them ever guessed that arming, funding, and training "terrorists" would come back to bite us in the ass so we continue that policy for at least the same duration of time.
None of this was surprising, except that people have had almost no reaction to it. People have been warning about the state we are currently in since I was a little kid. The take over of media was planned, and took time. People warned about the dangers and were silenced. I'm sure that the accidental theorist would claim that was yet another "whoops" but lets be real. Accidental theory is completely irrational and illogical.
If you really and truly want to answer your question, jump back and read a book by Gary Allen called "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". Take every fact he provides in the book and check it for truthfulness, you will find nothing inaccurate. That book will point you to other sources to read, which will begin to map out a nice web of people that will answer your question.
You can choose the red pill or the blue pill, but if you take the red pill there is no turning back and your life will never be the same.
So the opinions used to form the Constitution and create the wording can't be used to determine your opinion of the meaning of the Constitution? Are you really trying to make that claim?
My reaction would have been much more polite if you had actually read and commented on the facts presented, instead of making up your own fairy tales to approve of a government action.
They did not ask her about criminal history in the last 10 years, read TFA! They asked her "if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights." . Good grief man, reading is not that fucking difficult. The dismissal was based on a claim that she lied, because a group she was a member of 35 years ago was affiliated with a group that committed an act of terrorism 1 year after she stopped affiliating with the first groups. (emphasis mine)
Take the same logic to people. If you met someone in college and hung out 35 years ago, and 34 years ago that person met someone that committed a terrorist act you would have to know to claim "yup, I know someone affiliated with a terrorist" when asked the question today. And when you answer "no" they will grill you on that acquaintance from 35 years ago as if you had ESP and could know that they knew someone that committed a terrorist act a year after you last talked to them.
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
She was not a member of a "terrorist group", but rather a member of groups claimed by someone to be affiliated. Further, the alleged acts of terrorism occurred a year after she was even involved in those 2nd hand groups.
According to the article, she did not lie either.
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
and
After again being asked if she had been a member of any organization that espoused violence, Barr was grilled for 4.5 hours about her knowledge of all three organizations and several individuals with ties to them, including the persons who tried to rob the Brink’s truck. (Four people were found guilty of murder in that attack and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Kathy Boudin, who was released in 2003 and is now an adjunct assistant professor of social work at Columbia University.) “I found out about the Brink’s robbery by hearing it on the news, and just like everybody else I was shocked,” she recalls.
Which of course corroborates her story more than the feds who removed her from the position.
In other words, yet another example of people abusing power.
Fear mongering is almost never all conjecture, but that does not make it something other than fear mongering. The reality is that fear mongering has been a known control tactic for centuries.
It's one thing to have a rational discussion about potential issues, it's quite another to use intentional rhetoric to make problems exist that don't, or make very minor (extremely rare) problems that do exist seem much worse than they are.
The problem with your statement about stamping out a current "threat" is that it provides additional channels for overreach. I quoted "threat" intentionally, because the chances of a home grown anthrax causing any damage at all is akin to a home grown nuclear bomb causing damage. The cost of having and maintaining a home laboratory that can create something truly a threat is not obtainable by the majority of people, in fact the people that could afford such a lab and equipment are rare.
And lets just say that Jimmy somehow creates a new strain of flu. He has to contain it, weaponize it, and disperse it. These are not small or cheap feats to accomplish.
We already have Government agencies (DHS, ATF, FBI, etc..) that are already able to search out people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lab equipment and materials. We already have laws that protect society from people making such weapons, and using such weapons..
On the lighter side, maybe some additional regulations would get some companies to clean out those bioweapons growing in their fridges on occasion.
It was hair splitting, and now you moved the goal post. The issue you just raised is explicit situation which again has nothing to do with splitting Workstation loads into a different category from Servers.
If you are booting OS binaries from a Wireless network with low signal strength you are either an extremely rare military situation or you are an idiot.
Yeah, I saw the same bit on "The Daily Show". Sad that we get more "News" and contrary opinion from a comedy show than we get on 5-7 hours of what is called "news" broadcasting on 7 different networks.
I'm glad to see that censorship is alive and well on Slashdot.
You called out the exact difference between a workstation and a server (your 2nd paragraph), and nowhere does it require a different set of installation media, different kernel, or different init system. Packages are the difference.
To your point about classification, there is a reason that no tool exists for "tuning" to even a class of machine. DB is too broad, so if I tune for Oracle and happen to be running HANNA my server is going to be crippled. If I'm using local 15K disk vs. SAN vs. NFS for a DB, most of my tunings change while the DB may remain the same.
This is why software vendors provide tuning guidelines, but not tuning rules. Some of the very high end applications may not run if a tuning is too low, but they are not giving you a complete sysctl.conf file to run. They give you recommendations, and everything else is up to a good SA to figure out and implement.
Your argument is not valid, you are simply attempting to split hairs. A different init does not make a lick of difference between Server or Workstation. Mainly for the reasons I stated above: Most testing and development is done on workstations, then moved to DEV servers, then to QA servers, and then to production. Any time tweaking is required, those almost always start on a "workstation". Even if it's not (I have seen companies with very strict "you can only do this on a server policy) you run into a cost issue trying to support two different technologies for the same thing.
The init system, as I also stated, will be handled by the market. Personally, I like traditional init. "inittab" is very clear on usage, and bootstrapping applications can be highly customized. It's also easily customized on the fly.
I did not mind the Sun implementation of a new init system, because it fully supported old init style scripts. Most applications don't need an init daemon monitoring and trying to restart them when problems occur, that is what a monitoring system and competent SA team is for.
Just to make sure you know, my rant was not against you but against TFA.
I agree with you totally, but felt the need to add quite a bit.
Desktop workloads and server workloads have different needs, and it's high time Linux consider a split to more adequately address them, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia.
That statement reeks of an agenda. Linux has had the ability to run as a Server or a Workstation or both for as long as I can remember. The guy making said claim is an idiot, and I'll offer evidence to prove it.
What makes it a "Server" versus "Workstation"?
If you claim "Tuning", I'll tell you that every server gets tuned differently. An Oracle DB server gets totally different tuning from my SunOne LDAP servers, which are both different from Squid Proxies, which are all different than SMTP servers, and all of those are tuned differently than CAE or GPU simulation. Each of those tunings will be different depending on the hardware the OS is running on. 10Gb NICs get different tuning than 1Gb NICs, or Oracle on 128Gb memory vs. PAMCrash on 128Gb memory for two easy examples. If you make a "server" package with predefined tuning it will be for 1 application stack, and will probably the wrong tunings.
Further, these same tunings are also done on a Workstation all the time. Most often, this is for development and testing the changes. Just like most "server" applications are generally run for the same reasons on Workstations. So the goal of the author to split to Server/Workstation is a failure without any further consideration, and completely idiotic since it would require development, QA, and SA teams to buy more and more hardware.
Let's look at a couple other claims. SystemD vs. Init. Big whoop! That won't make a server different from a workstation either, Unix requires some type of initialization system. Different Distros may adapt different INIT systems, I'll pick the distro I find works best. The market and time will fix all problems with that one.
I suggested this possibility last week when discussing systemd (or that FreeBSD could see higher server adoption), but it's more than systemd coming into play here. It's from the bootloader all the way up.
Ahh, now that's the payload statement right there. Someone has the belief that if there is more fragmentation things will turn out their way, or that the threat of fragmentation will make things their way.
Sorry pal, that's not how things work. If you want to make your own distro, go to town. You can control every aspect from systemd (or not) to what packages and package manager you run, to what tunings you are providing out of the box. If it's a good distro, people will follow along and help you out. If it sucks ass for most users, you will be on your own with your own custom distro that nobody uses.
As I said above, your suggesting that Linux should be split is simply wrong. In fact it's provably wrong. Go look at Distro history. As soon as Distros start to strip things people need from their packages, people leave and find a new Distro. With the exception of Lindows who was sued out of existence by Microsoft, (and perhaps a couple others) thousands of Distros vanished or brick walled because some dickhead control freak(s) said "My way or the Highway" and started supporting only what they wanted instead of what the users needed.
Yes, they absolutely were. The only way to get raises these days is to find a new job, no this is not restricted to Silicon Valley. If you sit in the same job you will be lucky to get a wage increase close to the cost of living increase each year. This particular illegal activity restricted people from getting new higher paying jobs, for years. Even if they were qualified for the jobs (which these same companies claim don't exist and lobby for increases in H1B people).
The 60,000 people that were impacted by this particular crime will see maybe 1,000.00, so the punishment is not severe enough. The judge should cap the attorney fees on this and quadruple the fine to ensure fair compensation for the people harmed by these criminal acts.
If this sounds harsh, consider that some of the executives responsible are making 100 times the wage of the employees harmed by their crimes. Perhaps they should get fired and face personal liability to their previous employers for their criminal activities.
And we all know that viruses never mutate quickly, so we have a long time before we worry about that being false.. *sigh*
I'm not for the Government doing this at all, but the reasons are fiscal and not emotional. Our national debt is massive and expanding due to all these great opportunities to piss away money we don't have.
How about normal fundraisers like we do for everything else? If people have it, they tend to give it if they believe the cause is good and the recipient is trustworthy (often even without a trusted recipient).
First, lets remove the term STEM from the conversation as that is a classification of graduate, not a classification for Education System.
Education systems are the real problem, or at least what we are using as an education system. Your statement regarding a lack of convergent thinking is real problem, and is a direct result of our current education system. Our current system is based on the Prussian education system. This system was designed with the purpose of making soldiers smart enough to calculate and fire artillery, but not smart enough to question authority. Beat math into the persons head, but ignore Philosophy (ethics, morality, critical thinking). This system has been refined further and further since the US started pushing this as the education method in the 1930s (in fairness the biggest transitions started in the 40s).
When we moved to the Prussian system, we dumped the Classical education system. The "Classical" education system was improved over thousands of years. The curriculum was updated as we made progress, Alchemy being replaced by Chemistry for example. The focus of this system was to start with the foundation of critical thought and basic concepts. Rhetoric was taught at a very young age which encouraged dialogue and debate, along with basic math and language (reading/writing/spelling, etc...) Students took classes which advanced in a logical progression. If you teach someone Algebra at the same time as Physics, Algebra makes more sense. Teach someone music, and I mean actually teach them how the wave forms behave, and Trig makes more sense (music is the topic). Teaching ethics and morality at the same time as history provides the means to better evaluate future decisions.
Further, we have some good science backing how music directly impacts our thoughts. Certain sounds, patterns, and rhythms can cause the brain to produce chemicals that can enhance learning, or increase aggression, etc.. Teaching this along with music would certainly be of benefit to students.
So yea, music needs to be added back into schools. Our education system should be fully evaluated and revamped. Many teachers try and teach critical thought, so the problems we see are not related necessarily to teachers. Making teachers and students cram constantly for the next test has impacted even the best teachers. Teachers are evaluated on how well their students take the government mandated tests, not how well they can actually teach students.
Some terms to study outside of "Classical education" and "Prussian education" are the Trivium and Quadrivium.
What you mention is I believe symptom of other problems, not a problem by itself. To run down why science is currently being operated this way would be rather extensive so I'll cover the biggies.
1) IP Laws have allowed certain entities to own ideas, and patent trolls to buy patents in bulk for no other purpose than to milk innovators if a product becomes successful. Remember that success can also include causing damage to a competing product, so the "success" is related to the patent owner and not society or the science. This has dissuaded sharing of science (collaboration) that up until very recent times was very normal and healthy for progress.
2) Massive government and bureaucratic control of public funding. This has allowed "pet" project funding in place of what benefits society. In fact many projects are only to benefit the bureaucrats at the detriment of society.
3) Same massive government does not understand science to uses measures which are invalid and unrealistic to maintain science programs.
Everyone else including Universities are playing the games. There are many motives for this, and in many cases playing along is the only way to get funding.
You have a very shallow well of historical knowledge if you believe it was started by Bush.
Do you really believe that it's working any differently? Look who funds him (the same big banks he promised to prosecute), look who he attacks (whistle blowers and liberty minded individuals), and look at his list of accomplishments (the US is a whole lot more fucked up today than it was when he was elected either time).
Being a citizen and having a responsibility as a citizen does not come around once every 4 years. You are _always_ a citizen and should _always_ be responsible. I know you have not always quit when you met failure. You learned how to feed yourself, you learned how to write, and those things were miserable failures your first try. You kept going, and look at the result. Take that same persistence to your civic duties and be amazed at the result!
"We" is the US and it's citizens which are responsible for putting politicians in office. "We" are responsible for educating people in society about basic concepts like Liberty and Freedom, and what a Republic is supposed to be. "We" are responsible for warning and educating people to tyranny and where it has taken hold in the US. "We" are responsible for demanding an end to the escalation of the Police state within our borders and the lack of protecting the same. "We" are responsible to take action, and "We" have not yet done so at scale.
I am partially responsible for where we are today, and admit myself as part of the problem. I spend several hours a day doing my part to educate others to issues and educate myself to keep reality in focus. When will "you" admit to yours and do something other than claim it's that other guys fault?
As desirable as it would be in the case if ISIS, wouldn't implementing such kill switches on weapons be as ineffective as DRM for copyrighted material, with undesirable side-effects for "legitimate uses" and plenty of workarounds for "illegitimate" users?
Yes it would, so technology is not the answer. Remember that these are not US weapons we sold to someone through proper channels, which could 'potentially' have legitimate benefit of some type of kill switch. These are weapons that were captured. Why were they captured? Mostly because it was deemed 'too expensive' to move shit out of the country after withdrawing troops, so we 'sold' shit to Iraq and left. Think really long and hard about that one. Then think long and hard about the fact that the US was/is supporting the FSA and other groups aligned with ISIS/ISIL (or whatever the fuck they are being called today).
Yeah yeah, I know.. big shock and the politicians never knew that this would happen...
Who are you trying to kid? Cluster munitions and flame throwers are still in use, they just call them something else. Flame throwers today are white phosphorous munitions instead of a guy with a gas can and match (greatly extending range making it much more convenient the user, in addition to much safer), and the US in particular uses a slang term for cluster bombs of "grenadelettes" (see DPICM Munitions). DU rounds litter Afghanistan and Iraq so we are not too worried about generations of civilian casualties, let alone the damage we do immediately.
Hollow points are not really missed, because we have much worse munitions today for rifles/guns. Tumbling and AP rounds cause much more damage at much greater range and can ignore body armor.
The pretext for use of WP munitions is that you can't target a civilian, the same exact rule for high caliber weapons (.50+ caliber). So we claim to shoot at buildings and vehicles to justify WP use, and for large caliber munitions we claim to aim at their belt buckles or back packs.
Think of the money that could be made from mammograms and sales of Rogaine!!
That is *snark in case you miss the obvious
I fully agree with you, but searching all over I can find exactly 1 satellite photo claiming to be Russian made armor. Of course the huge problem in claiming this is actually Russian is that nearly every country in Eastern Europe uses Russian made tanks, artillery, helicopters, aircraft, etc... I have see no satellite images that tracked any movement from Russia to the Ukraine.
Don't speculate on the few exceptions to the rule about Russian weapons, you said we can't argue with different facts. I want facts proving that these 10 whole vehicles are both A) Really from Russia and B) really are in the Ukraine. 10 vehicles does not constitute a "full scale invasion" either, no matter what you try to claim. If you are using facts, where is this full scale invasion? Facts please!
Lets also not speculate on Russia building up troops next to the Ukraine. If Mexico was undergoing a massive revolt with lots of military action you can bet your ass that the US would have troops along the Texas and Southern California borders. As a soldier in West Germany (pre-unification) I saw Russian troops all along the East German border, because NATO built up a massive force for an 'exercise' and was operating near the border. So again, these types of activities are _normal_ and _expected_. If you have any doubts ask yourself why every time something happens near a friendly country the US sends huge naval forces into the zone.
I'm not claiming there are no shenanigans by Russia, I'm claiming that you are following the political hype and not looking at facts either. Facts show no such massive invasion, facts show less activity than the US has been using in the Middle East. I have seen no Russian bombers attacking Ukrainian positions, I have seen no columns of mobilized armor like we saw in Georgia, I have seen no cruise missile or rocket attacks.
After I weigh your 'facts' I'll be happy to hold a rational dialogue on opinions. Just remember however that there are numerous 'facts' that don't necessarily back your opinion. Such as Blackwater being in Kiev prior to the coup, and the sniper rounds that were shooting at both the pro government and rebel forces was the same weapon and same armor piercing rounds. A US official was caught collaborating to choose the new leader a few days before the coup. The endowment for democracy spent over 5 billion dollars in the Ukraine prior to the protests starting, etc... etc... In other words, there are plenty of shenanigans to go around.
I'm not trying to claim that Russia is 'good', but did you notice "Monakhov is using twitter to keep people informed about his experience with the Russian judicial system."? I don't know any people in the US that are allowed to keep their cell phones and tweet when arrested. I have seen people told to turn off their phones or be arrested, I have seen cops threaten to kill journalists (see the cop in Fergusson that was suspended for doing so), and I know that protestors that are arrested have their devices confiscated. The only reason we ever see wrong doing in our jails/prisons is due to leaked video from surveillance cameras, not because someone tweeted something.
So is the US a more totalitarian system than Russia? Before you "but the Ukraine" remember that US agencies spent over 5 billion dollars to help the revolt in the Ukraine so bears at least some responsibility for what's happening. Is the Ukraine going be be that much better off under EU control? Has not turned out so well for many in the EU (Greece/Spain/France, and the anti-EU party is huge in the UK today) so you will have to really sell me on that one. That, and this should be the choice of the Ukrainians as a whole.
These are complex issues so the answers are complex. Something to consider is that since I have been alive the US has been involved in more wars and killed more people than any other country on the planet. Many of the known conflicts were started on complete fabrications (Vietnam, 2nd Iraq). Would ISIL be as big of a problem today if the US was not funding and arming rebels in Syria, had not armed and funded rebels in Libya (and even provided air cover and bombed targets? Would we have so many problems if we were not continually killing innocent people when trying to assassinate alleged terrorist leaders? Would we have so many problems in the middle east if we had not armed, funded, and trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the late 80s?
The point here is that the US is not just an altruistic police force, simply helping those in need. We should be questioning these issues at a much deeper level than just repeating talking points.