Actually the replacement is not necessary so you are arguing a point that was never mentioned (very intentionally). The founding fathers had things thought out remarkably well. The US Government does not need to be remade in to something else, we simply need to revert back to our constitution and dismantle the executive orders and illegal acts that have been passed.
The problem comes when we try to reset and find that a majority of the population has a very distorted view of reality. There are numerous reasons for this delusion, much of which I can't blame the average person for. (lack of education, controlled media, etc...) Please save the argument, I'm not claiming I'm better than anyone else. I just happened to be lucky enough to receive enough education in College to start asking questions long ago. I'm still often duped by the system, and often find myself passively just agreeing with what I'm told instead of looking in to issues.
Additional problems persist when trying to get real people on ballots, which we know simply does not happen. It has become so bad that the Iowa Republican Caucus stated that "They don't care what the people think, Ron Paul will not win the nomination." Many will read that and think "Well, it's just Ron Paul" but take the name off the sentence and the statement is very clear. Your vote no longer matters, you get what they choose for you.
I could continue to provide examples, but I think you get the point.. it's a mess of gigantic proportions!.
Your last statement is very alarming. If you wish to defend yourself you are an insane criminal? Look, I'm sure you could have been tricked in to somehow believing something like this, but I want to assure you that this not a rational thought process.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly is that you are putting words in to my statement which were not made. I am not, and have not, advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I have stated that people should protect their right to defend themselves and their Liberties.
Well over a hundred million Chinese, Russians, and Jews thought the same way and ended up in mass graves. I prefer to use a slightly different statement of "I'd rather die fighting to be free than die when an oppressor decides to kill me.". Similar thought for sure, but some people seem to neglect history when wrestling with rational thinking.
When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property
This hit the news pretty heavy in the Bay area as well as nationally. It discredits the OWS which is why it made big media. Did you know that the Oakland Occupy movement had no idea where most of the violent people came from and that most of the people arrested were not even from California, let alone Oakland? You can check, that is factual information, and was reported on main stream media as well as local media in the Bay area. The same exact thing happened in other areas with violent demonstrations with OWS.
For the rest, you can search for videos and discussion regarding detention. I have seen more out of NYC than anywhere else. As mentioned, proof is extremely difficult.
You are not nuts at all. The Noble Lie is a great story, and once people start to learn reality it's hard to go back to living an illusion. It is very easy to sit in denial and pretend nothing is wrong, or use bullshit stories to try and manipulate reality as someone did responding to you. Checking reality is extremely uncomfortable to people (read the Alegory of the Cave) and you will get the idea, we have known this same thing for thousands of years.
For people that doubt, I usually point the to the economy. People claim to want it fixed, yet absolutely nothing is done to fix the problem. NAFTA has been expanded, even though it harms the economy. People then tend to fall back to "you are just a protectionist" argument without ever thinking about the priorities a Government has to the people they Govern. It is called denial, and don't be fooled.. denial is a very real thing for a whole lot of people.
No, Maybe, and Yes. I think the difference between now and then is that we have more people in the US Military and Police forces that are paying attention. I'm not confident that it will just be people with small arms against the whole Government, since many will revolt if the proverbial shit hits the fan from the Military and Police.
I think something to consider is the plight of the Jews under Nazi Germany, and ask a fundamental question. Would you rather die fighting to be free, or die in the hands of an oppressor? I learned a lot of history, and I can tell you my answer. Millions of Chinese, Russians, and Jewish people waited for the storm to blow over hoping it would all go away and we see where they ended up.
You can choose to sit and be complacent, however I would not advocate such action as the only action, since doing nothing will cause much more harm than good. Historically the previous statement is accurate.
I agree with your last statement, however, I don't think it can happen before the proverbial shit hits the fan. I have been hoping that same thing for many years, and continue to hope. The problems is not just who controls the media, but also the candidates put on ballets. If those things get changed we have a chance.
Proving something like this is extremely difficult, however something to investigate is how the Tea Party was changed after it's initial founding and the public response to the movement. Check the "leaders" that were appointed, public messages, etc... and see how they changed shortly after the movement gained momentum. Much of this work is already being done, but you have to find the information.
Historically we see very similar actions by other Governments and people (Nazi, Communism, Fascism, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc..). These take overs were not known to the public until after the fact. Call it sabotage or hijacking, the result is the same which ends with the movements being used counter to their initial purpose.
Another thing to consider is why we are all up in arms about issues that divert from the main topic of corruption. Instead of having people focus on the corruption we have people focusing on Liberals, Gay Rights, Race, and Religion. In my opinion, all of those things are an illusion to keep people from looking at the root problem.
Many of us already know exactly what is being stated. You really only needed to investigate the Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers to know this was happening. Many leaders of those groups have been jailed, detained, and publicly discredited by corporate owned media.
Without the common statements regarding famous books, what people should be fearing is tyranny. Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now. I would be a fool to state that it's everyone in Government. I would be a bigger fool to deny that there are people in Government pushing for a Tyrannical State and Oppressive Government.
Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.
It's been a while since I read the RedHat statements and the Boot security MS is requiring. I was sure that it was something that would be required in X86 BIOS however, which is why the Linux vendors felt the need to buy in to the system.
Of course I have not followed this very well since I deal with more Sparc systems than X86, but wondering if you could provide any links to information you had restricting this to ARM? Everything I have read so far makes it pretty universal, or presents it as MS is demanding it be universal.
And I would still be *extremely* surprised if you're not using some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS as part of actually connecting to the Internet in the first place... if you have discovered an ISP that will allow its residential customers to configure their systems with a static
You never restricted the internet to "residential customers", you gave a generalization and stated that everything works that way. It does not, and you are still not correct. You could at least have the decency of stating "I was incorrect, and what I meant to state was that with home users it works that way", but instead you present more untruths.
The Internet is a system to facilitate the exchange of information. Pray tell... if there's no information being exchanged, and no way to exchange said information, is there an Internet in the first place?
Previously you stated that the service protocols were required for the internet to function. Such as when you stated that the internet would not work without DNS. I'm not going to re-quote your statement, you can read up. Are you now agreeing with the point I made earlier that Services themselves are not required, but they make the internet usable?
Also, the P in all of those acronyms you listed stands for Protocol. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, HyperText Transfer Protocol, Internet Mail Access Protocol, and Post-Office Protocol. We'll throw in FTP, File Transfer
Do you want points for pointing out obvious information? Service protocols have dependencies on Network protocols. Network protocols are what make the internet function, not the services. Perhaps the confusion is my fault for not being specific enough, however in my defense I assumes someone with subject matter knowledge, are you are at least pretending to have, would know something this obvious.
You squirrelled the discussion into something completely unrelated to the point I was making
Wrong, I systematically went through every single item you stated that was FALSE. There was no "squirreling" and it was exactly related to what you originally posted in a nearly 1 to 1 fashion. If you really truly believe this my post was not related I'll ask that you call 911 and request an immediate hospitalization for mental illness. This would be delusional at a level which would be a concern for public safety.
you proceeded to make ad hominem attacks.
It is not an Ad hominem attack when someone corrects an untruth. I'd suggest that you take some remedial courses in Logic. Maybe you can even come back with the Latin term for doing just that. I am speculating that you will just use Google or Wiki because it's easier. Save the work since I know the term as well as its applications. As with the statement above I made regarding public safety, if you truly believe someone correcting an untruth is an attack of any kind (Ad hominem or other) I would suggest you seek immediate professional assistance for mental health.
I will no longer trying to discuss something with a person that refuses to admit an untruth even after it is pointed out, and continues to present false and irrelevant information trying to argue that their false information is really true. You are were not correct, you did not tell the truth, the end. Have a nice day!
ps. I mean no insult or offense in requesting you seek medical assistance. Most mental illnesses with symptoms of delusion are treatable, but you have to seek help to get treatment.
Well, the first point I'd make is that the Government should not be the ones auditing themselves. The public should be able to do that freely. Quotes being taken out of context happens all the time, this is why we have the ability to check those mistakes or at least show correct context in "News". More Government is not the answer to that dilemma, and that does not change the need for an open government.
I was most surely not joking. People have little trust for the Government, and the amount of information being hidden does nothing to curb the distrust. The US is supposed to be a Government "By the People and For the People".
As mentioned previously, if people did not have things to hide there would be no issues with making things open. Trust and Respect are something earned, and our government continues to rack up negative scores.
Repeating the same not true statement over and over will not make it true?
Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router.
WRONG! I don't give a shit what they teach at the MSCE classes or where ever you heard such a thing but my computer does not automatically configure DHCP. Even if I decided to use such a service (which as mentioned previously has security risks so most servers that are internet facing don't use these services) my OPERATING SYSTEM would use such a service, not my Computer.
Now, I guess you could become technical and say "But PXE" and my answer is still that it's not something done automatically unless I configure it to do so! In addition to a Computer not be doing this by default, and if I configured PXE my OS would not have an address because of a service in the BIOS. This is basic networking and system administration, nothing I would say is advanced.
You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years
I never made any such claim, I merely stated that you were wrong with your claim that it is always used. Goodie that "YOU" don't use static addresses, but don't claim that the rest of the world is the same as you.
.
You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring.
It was not a complaint and not a red herring, unless you take things way out of context, it was a statement of fact. My point with SMTP and HTTP is that you are claiming they are required services for the internet to function. My answer is the same, no they are not required. No more required than IMAP or POP. Those are SERVICES and service are not REQUIRED for the internet. Protocols are the only requirement for the internet to function. Do you get the difference? I'm guessing not.. but hell I'll try one more time.
Incidentally... you *do* know that HTTP is just a wrapper for FTP, right? You open an HTTP connection and request a file, and the server uses FTP to send the file to you....
I'm sure that the use of "wrapper" can be defined somehow so that you can make this correct. The RFC and implementation of the standard makes this statement a complete fabrication, as with other information you have presented. The last time I checked HTTP does not call FTP to transfer files from server to client, it uses HTTP. Both services use open() , write() and port numbers, they just have to be the same thing right? Here is a clue: Simply download the source for httpd and ftpd and compare the code bases.
There was no straw man argument. I'm not the one telling people how things work and doing so using fabricated information or speculation. That was you doing that, and at least coming across as very egocentric while doing so.
Look, I'm sure you are intelligent about many things, this is just not your area of expertise. If you had not talked down to someone pretending to be an expert I would have never said a word. Replying to me and claiming further to be an expert, while not being said expert, because I corrected your mistakes does not help your case. Even if you toss out irrelevant BS about 802.11 wireless specs and a magnetron.
Nicely stated. I think that the one thing Kwame Kilpatrick taught all politicians is not to use text messaging.
Food for thinking: If a Public official working on behalf of the public has nothing to hide, why are they hiding? It should be illegal for them to do business with no trail in my opinion. The whole idea of "Public" official and "Public" offices are that these people work for the "Public".
So without DNS, NTP, and DB connections, we'd have a horrible static web to look at, that would have frequent problems because the clocks are out of sync
Oh come now, CGI works just fine for dynamic pages...:P
Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.
and your web-based e-mail client is usually an IMAP4 front-end supported by a database back-end... usually SQL or some variant of it (mssql for hotmail, mysql for yahoo, and I'm reasonably sure that gmail, while it used mysql in the past, is now using a home-grown nosql variant
You were correct with SMTP, but the rest seems to be a candidate for buzz word bingo more than being technically accurate. Web Based mail has no requirement for IMAP and a database for Web Mail is something a user would never see. Since you used "usually" instead of always I'll cut you some slack, but you should really investigate before writing "how things work" statements.
Every cloud-based "application" is also supported by a database back-end.
Not true. While it is true for some vendors products "every" would mean "all", and the majority do not have any database requirements.
You also have DNS, without which you can't get into the web-based frontpage in the first place,
Wrong! You can still get anywhere you want if you know the address for the host. DNS is not a requirement, it just make things easier to find since humans remember names much better than number sets.
and if we're going to start talking about low-level stuff like that you almost certainly go through a DHCP server and/or a RADIUS server before you are even able to do the DNS request.
Wrong again! Servers do not use DHCP or RADIUS to get addresses a vast majority of the time. Claiming "almost certainly" is a crock, it would be more like "almost never" since best practices for security tell you not to use any type of address request service. Clients often use those services since the amount of risk in using said services are seen as acceptable. If all you do is clients, well, don't claim to know how things work outside of that small world.
The average user may not be aware that the technologies exists, and they almost certainly don't care, but the Internet as it's known today can't exist without them.
Protocols run the internet, not the services you are pointing at. If SMTP did not exist another service could run in it's place, if HTTP did not exist, something else would. I'm not stating that services are bad, I'm telling you your statement is very wrong. The internet is just fine and exists perfectly without services. It becomes more usable with services.
That being said, trying to argue technical nomenclature with a non-technical person is a bit like holding back the tide with a thimble. At the end of the day, you're standing waist-deep in water with the fish nibbling at your toes, still trying to stop the water from reaching the shore.
That statement is the reason that I responded to your post! You appear to believe you know everything, and it is very obvious that you do not.
Not quite the same in my opinion, but thanks for the link. In order to meet the criteria for the parable we'd have to intentionally break servers. I won't claim that upgrades are always correct or viable, mind you. This is why companies should be paying experts to see what is really needed vs. the parable you show.
Example, we have DBAs that can tell us that something is at a limit. Lets say we hit a max row length for simplicity. Next version extends that limit, so we have to upgrade. Upgrade may also require double the memory, so we have to match the footprint of the server to the requirements of the application.
With that said, I have seen people intentionally break PCs to get new ones which would match the parable. It's not very common, but does happen. You know the guy that wrecks his truck to cash in the insurance and buy a new truck? probably the same guy:)
Think if this model were replicated on a larger scale. "Official government press releases said that the Congress is functioning smoothly and all citizens are happy" or "Microsoft press releases stated that Office 2018 is a must-buy and everyone loves Windows."
Seriously you think this has not already been happening for years? (Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not.) It's of course not Universal, but it is very wide spread. This is quite honestly why distrust corporate owned media. When people I know that watch the "News" every single day have no idea what Fast and Furious is about, or Kony 2012, or what OWS is about, it's flooring. These are all major issues and the majority that watch corporate owned media have little to no information to work with.
Fox ran a 10 second piece 2 months ago that stated Kony 2012 was a hoax, but never mentioned who propagated the hoax. ABC and NBC did not mention it that I know of, but could have done similar 10 second pieces. That is just one of countless possible issues. It is "News" when the Government sponsors blatant lies to manipulate the public, yet there are few reports about the manipulation, lies, etc...
When you get an example, get back to me, because the one you provided was laughably clueless. (Here's a free hint for you: Newspaper editors aren't entirely stupid, and they do know who they hire to write opinion pieces and who they hire to write news.)
I gave one, it worked very well. You stated that "Outsourcing" has been happening for a long time in Journalism. Clearly you back what I stated, that that would only be true if you re-defined outsourcing. Correspondents were not anonymous people. Of course they were not local, but they sure as hell were not anonymous and sold as cheap commodity like TFA is discussing. The same would be true for Editors, and Journalists. There were names, and in many cases people did not even use Pen names. Of course there were many political and war correspondents and journalists that did, but it was not always seen as an honorable thing in the field. Journalism was (and to many still is) about reputation, not stuffing trash on to users as "News" for the lowest possible price.
That almost always depended on the political/editorial slant of the paper question. A Republican paper would never hesitate to print dirt on a Democratic office holder. A paper beholden to an owner who hated $BIG_FAMILY_IN_TOWN would almost certainly publish dirt on that family. Etc... etc...
Hurray, another quantification fallacy. (Not from you mind you, I have just been noticing a rash of these lately) I gave a generalization which you back and add information to suggesting my statement was incorrect. If A=1, B=1, and C=1 then the statement "A=1" is not false when not including B and C. It's still correct, and would only be incorrect if A was dependent on B and/or C (which in this case there is no dependency).
True. But that didn't prevent them from printing stories from wire services or independent correspondents. But also keep in mind that the idea that news was independent,
Sorry, I don't agree and you can't convince me it's true. As mentioned above Correspondents had names, they were not Anonymous Joe being paid the lowest possible price to BS people or Copy other people's work. Also, journalists were rarely independent, they almost always had opinions and presented those opinions. That's what gave them a name and reputation. It either gave them value in the market or killed their careers. In addition they had integrity and a code of honor among themselves, and they knew the importance of telling a story as close to the truth as possible for countless reasons.
it got started with the decline of newspapers and the rise of TV journalism.... I.E. just as the big corporations were starting to increase their control over all news sources. That's probably not an accident.
I agree with that statement fully. Search my posts in this thread since I stated something very similar. We, the American people, should be concerned and alarmed. The Noble Lie is not a well known story any longer, and should be.
We did receive News from abroad if that is what you are calling "Outsourcing", but it was not anything like what is happening now. I'm not sure how you can even draw a parallel. Let me give you a brief yet well known example.
Carl Marx was a writer, and wrote stories for various news papers in the US. Those were printed as Opinion Pieces, not News. When it came to Newspapers with interest, and later broadcasting media, they sent reporters that were trained in and practiced Journalism across the globe to get "News". Those stories were of course called "News" and not "Opinion Pieces". The difference between the two is so vast that there should no way of confusing what was "News" with what was "Outsourced".
"News" from any source was never perfect and not infallible. Stories had to be about things that people were interested in, which kept the "News" selling and the companies profitable. A story that may harm someone in certain positions may sometimes not make it to print. Other times, stories were printed in a way to present a preferable scenario instead of what was really going on. Those things were not the "Normal" and when caught became scandalous. News, up until very recent times had concerns for their Journalistic reputation and abilities.
People knew how important "News" was to keeping people in power honest. Monopoly laws prevented 2 people from owning every form of media we have and see, which is just about the position we are currently in. Think about that last statement long and hard, then look at who owns 99% of all "News" currently. (My percentage may be a bit off due to "Bloggers", but it should be very very close.)
Of course! There is no such thing as nefarious or badly intentioned software, just like there is no such thing as bad intentioned or nefarious Journalism right?
The above is of course sarcasm. What I have seen so far have been the innocent comments and concerns, but you hint at a bigger problem. What about the lies, or plain old cover ups that are happening because there are no local journalists to actually do.. you know.. Journalism?
The article also talks about something which is a huge red flag. "Only use one source for data", which is just about as against the spirit of Journalism as a company can get. I find it completely unacceptable that people are not only allowing it, but condoning it.
The sad part is you appear to believe it's socially and morally acceptable to believe this. It is not. I'm also guessing that you would be the first person to be jumping up and down crying "FOUL" as soon as you get shafted.
Keep doing nothing, or promoting what we are doing wrong. We all saw how this worked out for our friends in Germany, Russia, China, etc.. etc.. etc..
IT people like it better honestly, as well as management types. The logic is of course very different for why each likes said products.
IT people like it for the support. Expensive, but when bad things happen we have a fall guy and someone to solve problems we simply can not (code changes, etc...). It tends to also have more features than any "Free" product. The "Oh Shit" button is invaluable for more reasons than this mind you. It also means we have to keep buying hardware to meet current versions, etc.. so it keeps our Economy going.
Management likes it for "Support", but also "Status". It's bragging rights quite honestly. If the majority can not understand the difference between MAC and PC do you think they know the difference between Oracle and MySQL? Probably not, though I'm sure that some do. But they can't hang out at the Golf course talking about their multimillion dollar MySQL accounts like they can with Oracle.
Wow! Someone that knows how to use a quantification fallacy. I'm not surprised really, lately it seems to be nearly as popular as an appeal to emotion.
A long long time ago newspapers used to print mainly news, but over the decades almost all news media has shifted to giving you opinions rather than factual information
News always gave you opinion, that's what sold. The problem now is that there are no striking differences in any opinion from paper to TV to Radio to Web. It's nearly always the same opinion if they even decide to talk about "News".
What I think concerns me the most is that people have not noticed, but you know what? Politicians have. A tiny percentage of the population pays attention to big issues, and when people to point to things they tend to quickly get drowned out by corporate owned media. For two easy examples,, look at the "Tea Party" and "OWS". A majority of people don't know what the (Modern) Tea Party is or why it was started. A majority only know OWS as being a bunch of potheads that want to camp in public parks. This is not getting in to more serious or current issues like Syria, Fast and Furious, Economy, etc...
This should really bother people and get them to ask others to pay attention. In my opinion it has been bothering more and more people (based in posts and various non-corporate media) so we are getting there.
We, as a free People, need to remember why the Media was so important. More people need to start asking others to discuss news, political happenings, etc... Alternative opinions are what kept people honest for a long time.
Exactly! As with all technology each has a purpose. I remember the old days when all we had was binary databases, the reason for the SQL was that the binary blobs could not do everything needed. While I find it interesting that we have seen a lot of growth in the older technology, it is not something new. SQL won't be going away, just like NoSQL never really went away (it just saw negative to no growth for a very long time).
Remove the bias and fan boy status and what do you have? You have 2 technologies to choose from which can get the job done regardless of your use case.
Microsoft has never been known to be a company that cares about consumers more than profit. Profit is their driving factor in everything they do from product lock-in, to implementing "Standards" in a way that is not conducive to said "Standards", to intentionally breaking competing products to increase sales of their own products, to forcing products on consumers to kill off competition.
I am honestly surprised that anyone shows surprise when things like this happen or get brought out in to the spotlight. You know what they are, or could easily find out. If a person continually believes a pathological liar does that not make them a co-dependent?
I have personally boycotted Microsoft for over a decade. No Zune, no Xbox, and Windows Desktop only when forced (Employer and Public Schools often require it's use). My kid has been very happy to back my decision, he loves his Play Stations, PSP, iPod, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
actually I laughed a little bit, the humor was a nice distraction from the seriousness of the topic.
Actually the replacement is not necessary so you are arguing a point that was never mentioned (very intentionally). The founding fathers had things thought out remarkably well. The US Government does not need to be remade in to something else, we simply need to revert back to our constitution and dismantle the executive orders and illegal acts that have been passed.
The problem comes when we try to reset and find that a majority of the population has a very distorted view of reality. There are numerous reasons for this delusion, much of which I can't blame the average person for. (lack of education, controlled media, etc...) Please save the argument, I'm not claiming I'm better than anyone else. I just happened to be lucky enough to receive enough education in College to start asking questions long ago. I'm still often duped by the system, and often find myself passively just agreeing with what I'm told instead of looking in to issues.
Additional problems persist when trying to get real people on ballots, which we know simply does not happen. It has become so bad that the Iowa Republican Caucus stated that "They don't care what the people think, Ron Paul will not win the nomination." Many will read that and think "Well, it's just Ron Paul" but take the name off the sentence and the statement is very clear. Your vote no longer matters, you get what they choose for you.
I could continue to provide examples, but I think you get the point.. it's a mess of gigantic proportions!.
Your last statement is very alarming. If you wish to defend yourself you are an insane criminal? Look, I'm sure you could have been tricked in to somehow believing something like this, but I want to assure you that this not a rational thought process.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly is that you are putting words in to my statement which were not made. I am not, and have not, advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I have stated that people should protect their right to defend themselves and their Liberties.
Well over a hundred million Chinese, Russians, and Jews thought the same way and ended up in mass graves. I prefer to use a slightly different statement of "I'd rather die fighting to be free than die when an oppressor decides to kill me.". Similar thought for sure, but some people seem to neglect history when wrestling with rational thinking.
When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property
This hit the news pretty heavy in the Bay area as well as nationally. It discredits the OWS which is why it made big media. Did you know that the Oakland Occupy movement had no idea where most of the violent people came from and that most of the people arrested were not even from California, let alone Oakland? You can check, that is factual information, and was reported on main stream media as well as local media in the Bay area. The same exact thing happened in other areas with violent demonstrations with OWS.
For the rest, you can search for videos and discussion regarding detention. I have seen more out of NYC than anywhere else. As mentioned, proof is extremely difficult.
You are not nuts at all. The Noble Lie is a great story, and once people start to learn reality it's hard to go back to living an illusion. It is very easy to sit in denial and pretend nothing is wrong, or use bullshit stories to try and manipulate reality as someone did responding to you. Checking reality is extremely uncomfortable to people (read the Alegory of the Cave) and you will get the idea, we have known this same thing for thousands of years.
For people that doubt, I usually point the to the economy. People claim to want it fixed, yet absolutely nothing is done to fix the problem. NAFTA has been expanded, even though it harms the economy. People then tend to fall back to "you are just a protectionist" argument without ever thinking about the priorities a Government has to the people they Govern. It is called denial, and don't be fooled.. denial is a very real thing for a whole lot of people.
No, Maybe, and Yes. I think the difference between now and then is that we have more people in the US Military and Police forces that are paying attention. I'm not confident that it will just be people with small arms against the whole Government, since many will revolt if the proverbial shit hits the fan from the Military and Police.
I think something to consider is the plight of the Jews under Nazi Germany, and ask a fundamental question. Would you rather die fighting to be free, or die in the hands of an oppressor? I learned a lot of history, and I can tell you my answer. Millions of Chinese, Russians, and Jewish people waited for the storm to blow over hoping it would all go away and we see where they ended up.
You can choose to sit and be complacent, however I would not advocate such action as the only action, since doing nothing will cause much more harm than good. Historically the previous statement is accurate.
I agree with your last statement, however, I don't think it can happen before the proverbial shit hits the fan. I have been hoping that same thing for many years, and continue to hope. The problems is not just who controls the media, but also the candidates put on ballets. If those things get changed we have a chance.
Proving something like this is extremely difficult, however something to investigate is how the Tea Party was changed after it's initial founding and the public response to the movement. Check the "leaders" that were appointed, public messages, etc... and see how they changed shortly after the movement gained momentum. Much of this work is already being done, but you have to find the information.
Historically we see very similar actions by other Governments and people (Nazi, Communism, Fascism, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc..). These take overs were not known to the public until after the fact. Call it sabotage or hijacking, the result is the same which ends with the movements being used counter to their initial purpose.
Another thing to consider is why we are all up in arms about issues that divert from the main topic of corruption. Instead of having people focus on the corruption we have people focusing on Liberals, Gay Rights, Race, and Religion. In my opinion, all of those things are an illusion to keep people from looking at the root problem.
Many of us already know exactly what is being stated. You really only needed to investigate the Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers to know this was happening. Many leaders of those groups have been jailed, detained, and publicly discredited by corporate owned media.
Without the common statements regarding famous books, what people should be fearing is tyranny. Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now. I would be a fool to state that it's everyone in Government. I would be a bigger fool to deny that there are people in Government pushing for a Tyrannical State and Oppressive Government.
Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.
It's been a while since I read the RedHat statements and the Boot security MS is requiring. I was sure that it was something that would be required in X86 BIOS however, which is why the Linux vendors felt the need to buy in to the system.
Of course I have not followed this very well since I deal with more Sparc systems than X86, but wondering if you could provide any links to information you had restricting this to ARM? Everything I have read so far makes it pretty universal, or presents it as MS is demanding it be universal.
And I would still be *extremely* surprised if you're not using some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS as part of actually connecting to the Internet in the first place... if you have discovered an ISP that will allow its residential customers to configure their systems with a static
You never restricted the internet to "residential customers", you gave a generalization and stated that everything works that way. It does not, and you are still not correct. You could at least have the decency of stating "I was incorrect, and what I meant to state was that with home users it works that way", but instead you present more untruths.
The Internet is a system to facilitate the exchange of information. Pray tell... if there's no information being exchanged, and no way to exchange said information, is there an Internet in the first place?
Previously you stated that the service protocols were required for the internet to function. Such as when you stated that the internet would not work without DNS. I'm not going to re-quote your statement, you can read up. Are you now agreeing with the point I made earlier that Services themselves are not required, but they make the internet usable?
Also, the P in all of those acronyms you listed stands for Protocol. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, HyperText Transfer Protocol, Internet Mail Access Protocol, and Post-Office Protocol. We'll throw in FTP, File Transfer
Do you want points for pointing out obvious information? Service protocols have dependencies on Network protocols. Network protocols are what make the internet function, not the services. Perhaps the confusion is my fault for not being specific enough, however in my defense I assumes someone with subject matter knowledge, are you are at least pretending to have, would know something this obvious.
You squirrelled the discussion into something completely unrelated to the point I was making
Wrong, I systematically went through every single item you stated that was FALSE. There was no "squirreling" and it was exactly related to what you originally posted in a nearly 1 to 1 fashion. If you really truly believe this my post was not related I'll ask that you call 911 and request an immediate hospitalization for mental illness. This would be delusional at a level which would be a concern for public safety.
you proceeded to make ad hominem attacks.
It is not an Ad hominem attack when someone corrects an untruth. I'd suggest that you take some remedial courses in Logic. Maybe you can even come back with the Latin term for doing just that. I am speculating that you will just use Google or Wiki because it's easier. Save the work since I know the term as well as its applications. As with the statement above I made regarding public safety, if you truly believe someone correcting an untruth is an attack of any kind (Ad hominem or other) I would suggest you seek immediate professional assistance for mental health.
I will no longer trying to discuss something with a person that refuses to admit an untruth even after it is pointed out, and continues to present false and irrelevant information trying to argue that their false information is really true. You are were not correct, you did not tell the truth, the end. Have a nice day!
ps. I mean no insult or offense in requesting you seek medical assistance. Most mental illnesses with symptoms of delusion are treatable, but you have to seek help to get treatment.
Well, the first point I'd make is that the Government should not be the ones auditing themselves. The public should be able to do that freely. Quotes being taken out of context happens all the time, this is why we have the ability to check those mistakes or at least show correct context in "News". More Government is not the answer to that dilemma, and that does not change the need for an open government.
I was most surely not joking. People have little trust for the Government, and the amount of information being hidden does nothing to curb the distrust. The US is supposed to be a Government "By the People and For the People".
As mentioned previously, if people did not have things to hide there would be no issues with making things open. Trust and Respect are something earned, and our government continues to rack up negative scores.
Repeating the same not true statement over and over will not make it true?
Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router.
WRONG! I don't give a shit what they teach at the MSCE classes or where ever you heard such a thing but my computer does not automatically configure DHCP. Even if I decided to use such a service (which as mentioned previously has security risks so most servers that are internet facing don't use these services) my OPERATING SYSTEM would use such a service, not my Computer.
Now, I guess you could become technical and say "But PXE" and my answer is still that it's not something done automatically unless I configure it to do so! In addition to a Computer not be doing this by default, and if I configured PXE my OS would not have an address because of a service in the BIOS. This is basic networking and system administration, nothing I would say is advanced.
You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years
I never made any such claim, I merely stated that you were wrong with your claim that it is always used. Goodie that "YOU" don't use static addresses, but don't claim that the rest of the world is the same as you.
.
You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring.
It was not a complaint and not a red herring, unless you take things way out of context, it was a statement of fact. My point with SMTP and HTTP is that you are claiming they are required services for the internet to function. My answer is the same, no they are not required. No more required than IMAP or POP. Those are SERVICES and service are not REQUIRED for the internet. Protocols are the only requirement for the internet to function. Do you get the difference? I'm guessing not.. but hell I'll try one more time.
Incidentally... you *do* know that HTTP is just a wrapper for FTP, right? You open an HTTP connection and request a file, and the server uses FTP to send the file to you....
I'm sure that the use of "wrapper" can be defined somehow so that you can make this correct. The RFC and implementation of the standard makes this statement a complete fabrication, as with other information you have presented. The last time I checked HTTP does not call FTP to transfer files from server to client, it uses HTTP. Both services use open() , write() and port numbers, they just have to be the same thing right? Here is a clue: Simply download the source for httpd and ftpd and compare the code bases.
There was no straw man argument. I'm not the one telling people how things work and doing so using fabricated information or speculation. That was you doing that, and at least coming across as very egocentric while doing so.
Look, I'm sure you are intelligent about many things, this is just not your area of expertise. If you had not talked down to someone pretending to be an expert I would have never said a word. Replying to me and claiming further to be an expert, while not being said expert, because I corrected your mistakes does not help your case. Even if you toss out irrelevant BS about 802.11 wireless specs and a magnetron.
Nicely stated. I think that the one thing Kwame Kilpatrick taught all politicians is not to use text messaging.
Food for thinking: If a Public official working on behalf of the public has nothing to hide, why are they hiding? It should be illegal for them to do business with no trail in my opinion. The whole idea of "Public" official and "Public" offices are that these people work for the "Public".
So without DNS, NTP, and DB connections, we'd have a horrible static web to look at, that would have frequent problems because the clocks are out of sync
Oh come now, CGI works just fine for dynamic pages... :P
Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.
and your web-based e-mail client is usually an IMAP4 front-end supported by a database back-end... usually SQL or some variant of it (mssql for hotmail, mysql for yahoo, and I'm reasonably sure that gmail, while it used mysql in the past, is now using a home-grown nosql variant
You were correct with SMTP, but the rest seems to be a candidate for buzz word bingo more than being technically accurate. Web Based mail has no requirement for IMAP and a database for Web Mail is something a user would never see. Since you used "usually" instead of always I'll cut you some slack, but you should really investigate before writing "how things work" statements.
Every cloud-based "application" is also supported by a database back-end.
Not true. While it is true for some vendors products "every" would mean "all", and the majority do not have any database requirements.
You also have DNS, without which you can't get into the web-based frontpage in the first place,
Wrong! You can still get anywhere you want if you know the address for the host. DNS is not a requirement, it just make things easier to find since humans remember names much better than number sets.
and if we're going to start talking about low-level stuff like that you almost certainly go through a DHCP server and/or a RADIUS server before you are even able to do the DNS request.
Wrong again! Servers do not use DHCP or RADIUS to get addresses a vast majority of the time. Claiming "almost certainly" is a crock, it would be more like "almost never" since best practices for security tell you not to use any type of address request service. Clients often use those services since the amount of risk in using said services are seen as acceptable. If all you do is clients, well, don't claim to know how things work outside of that small world.
The average user may not be aware that the technologies exists, and they almost certainly don't care, but the Internet as it's known today can't exist without them.
Protocols run the internet, not the services you are pointing at. If SMTP did not exist another service could run in it's place, if HTTP did not exist, something else would. I'm not stating that services are bad, I'm telling you your statement is very wrong. The internet is just fine and exists perfectly without services. It becomes more usable with services.
That being said, trying to argue technical nomenclature with a non-technical person is a bit like holding back the tide with a thimble. At the end of the day, you're standing waist-deep in water with the fish nibbling at your toes, still trying to stop the water from reaching the shore.
That statement is the reason that I responded to your post! You appear to believe you know everything, and it is very obvious that you do not.
Not quite the same in my opinion, but thanks for the link. In order to meet the criteria for the parable we'd have to intentionally break servers. I won't claim that upgrades are always correct or viable, mind you. This is why companies should be paying experts to see what is really needed vs. the parable you show.
Example, we have DBAs that can tell us that something is at a limit. Lets say we hit a max row length for simplicity. Next version extends that limit, so we have to upgrade. Upgrade may also require double the memory, so we have to match the footprint of the server to the requirements of the application.
With that said, I have seen people intentionally break PCs to get new ones which would match the parable. It's not very common, but does happen. You know the guy that wrecks his truck to cash in the insurance and buy a new truck? probably the same guy :)
Think if this model were replicated on a larger scale. "Official government press releases said that the Congress is functioning smoothly and all citizens are happy" or "Microsoft press releases stated that Office 2018 is a must-buy and everyone loves Windows."
Seriously you think this has not already been happening for years? (Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not.) It's of course not Universal, but it is very wide spread. This is quite honestly why distrust corporate owned media. When people I know that watch the "News" every single day have no idea what Fast and Furious is about, or Kony 2012, or what OWS is about, it's flooring. These are all major issues and the majority that watch corporate owned media have little to no information to work with.
Fox ran a 10 second piece 2 months ago that stated Kony 2012 was a hoax, but never mentioned who propagated the hoax. ABC and NBC did not mention it that I know of, but could have done similar 10 second pieces. That is just one of countless possible issues. It is "News" when the Government sponsors blatant lies to manipulate the public, yet there are few reports about the manipulation, lies, etc...
When you get an example, get back to me, because the one you provided was laughably clueless. (Here's a free hint for you: Newspaper editors aren't entirely stupid, and they do know who they hire to write opinion pieces and who they hire to write news.)
I gave one, it worked very well. You stated that "Outsourcing" has been happening for a long time in Journalism. Clearly you back what I stated, that that would only be true if you re-defined outsourcing. Correspondents were not anonymous people. Of course they were not local, but they sure as hell were not anonymous and sold as cheap commodity like TFA is discussing. The same would be true for Editors, and Journalists. There were names, and in many cases people did not even use Pen names. Of course there were many political and war correspondents and journalists that did, but it was not always seen as an honorable thing in the field. Journalism was (and to many still is) about reputation, not stuffing trash on to users as "News" for the lowest possible price.
That almost always depended on the political/editorial slant of the paper question. A Republican paper would never hesitate to print dirt on a Democratic office holder. A paper beholden to an owner who hated $BIG_FAMILY_IN_TOWN would almost certainly publish dirt on that family. Etc... etc...
Hurray, another quantification fallacy. (Not from you mind you, I have just been noticing a rash of these lately) I gave a generalization which you back and add information to suggesting my statement was incorrect. If A=1, B=1, and C=1 then the statement "A=1" is not false when not including B and C. It's still correct, and would only be incorrect if A was dependent on B and/or C (which in this case there is no dependency).
True. But that didn't prevent them from printing stories from wire services or independent correspondents. But also keep in mind that the idea that news was independent,
Sorry, I don't agree and you can't convince me it's true. As mentioned above Correspondents had names, they were not Anonymous Joe being paid the lowest possible price to BS people or Copy other people's work. Also, journalists were rarely independent, they almost always had opinions and presented those opinions. That's what gave them a name and reputation. It either gave them value in the market or killed their careers. In addition they had integrity and a code of honor among themselves, and they knew the importance of telling a story as close to the truth as possible for countless reasons.
it got started with the decline of newspapers and the rise of TV journalism.... I.E. just as the big corporations were starting to increase their control over all news sources. That's probably not an accident.
I agree with that statement fully. Search my posts in this thread since I stated something very similar. We, the American people, should be concerned and alarmed. The Noble Lie is not a well known story any longer, and should be.
We did receive News from abroad if that is what you are calling "Outsourcing", but it was not anything like what is happening now. I'm not sure how you can even draw a parallel. Let me give you a brief yet well known example.
Carl Marx was a writer, and wrote stories for various news papers in the US. Those were printed as Opinion Pieces, not News. When it came to Newspapers with interest, and later broadcasting media, they sent reporters that were trained in and practiced Journalism across the globe to get "News". Those stories were of course called "News" and not "Opinion Pieces". The difference between the two is so vast that there should no way of confusing what was "News" with what was "Outsourced".
"News" from any source was never perfect and not infallible. Stories had to be about things that people were interested in, which kept the "News" selling and the companies profitable. A story that may harm someone in certain positions may sometimes not make it to print. Other times, stories were printed in a way to present a preferable scenario instead of what was really going on. Those things were not the "Normal" and when caught became scandalous. News, up until very recent times had concerns for their Journalistic reputation and abilities.
People knew how important "News" was to keeping people in power honest. Monopoly laws prevented 2 people from owning every form of media we have and see, which is just about the position we are currently in. Think about that last statement long and hard, then look at who owns 99% of all "News" currently. (My percentage may be a bit off due to "Bloggers", but it should be very very close.)
Of course! There is no such thing as nefarious or badly intentioned software, just like there is no such thing as bad intentioned or nefarious Journalism right?
The above is of course sarcasm. What I have seen so far have been the innocent comments and concerns, but you hint at a bigger problem. What about the lies, or plain old cover ups that are happening because there are no local journalists to actually do.. you know.. Journalism?
The article also talks about something which is a huge red flag. "Only use one source for data", which is just about as against the spirit of Journalism as a company can get. I find it completely unacceptable that people are not only allowing it, but condoning it.
The sad part is you appear to believe it's socially and morally acceptable to believe this. It is not. I'm also guessing that you would be the first person to be jumping up and down crying "FOUL" as soon as you get shafted.
Keep doing nothing, or promoting what we are doing wrong. We all saw how this worked out for our friends in Germany, Russia, China, etc.. etc.. etc..
IT people like it better honestly, as well as management types. The logic is of course very different for why each likes said products.
IT people like it for the support. Expensive, but when bad things happen we have a fall guy and someone to solve problems we simply can not (code changes, etc...). It tends to also have more features than any "Free" product. The "Oh Shit" button is invaluable for more reasons than this mind you. It also means we have to keep buying hardware to meet current versions, etc.. so it keeps our Economy going.
Management likes it for "Support", but also "Status". It's bragging rights quite honestly. If the majority can not understand the difference between MAC and PC do you think they know the difference between Oracle and MySQL? Probably not, though I'm sure that some do. But they can't hang out at the Golf course talking about their multimillion dollar MySQL accounts like they can with Oracle.
Wow! Someone that knows how to use a quantification fallacy. I'm not surprised really, lately it seems to be nearly as popular as an appeal to emotion.
A long long time ago newspapers used to print mainly news, but over the decades almost all news media has shifted to giving you opinions rather than factual information
News always gave you opinion, that's what sold. The problem now is that there are no striking differences in any opinion from paper to TV to Radio to Web. It's nearly always the same opinion if they even decide to talk about "News".
What I think concerns me the most is that people have not noticed, but you know what? Politicians have. A tiny percentage of the population pays attention to big issues, and when people to point to things they tend to quickly get drowned out by corporate owned media. For two easy examples,, look at the "Tea Party" and "OWS". A majority of people don't know what the (Modern) Tea Party is or why it was started. A majority only know OWS as being a bunch of potheads that want to camp in public parks. This is not getting in to more serious or current issues like Syria, Fast and Furious, Economy, etc...
This should really bother people and get them to ask others to pay attention. In my opinion it has been bothering more and more people (based in posts and various non-corporate media) so we are getting there.
We, as a free People, need to remember why the Media was so important. More people need to start asking others to discuss news, political happenings, etc... Alternative opinions are what kept people honest for a long time.
Exactly! As with all technology each has a purpose. I remember the old days when all we had was binary databases, the reason for the SQL was that the binary blobs could not do everything needed. While I find it interesting that we have seen a lot of growth in the older technology, it is not something new. SQL won't be going away, just like NoSQL never really went away (it just saw negative to no growth for a very long time).
Remove the bias and fan boy status and what do you have? You have 2 technologies to choose from which can get the job done regardless of your use case.
Microsoft has never been known to be a company that cares about consumers more than profit. Profit is their driving factor in everything they do from product lock-in, to implementing "Standards" in a way that is not conducive to said "Standards", to intentionally breaking competing products to increase sales of their own products, to forcing products on consumers to kill off competition.
I am honestly surprised that anyone shows surprise when things like this happen or get brought out in to the spotlight. You know what they are, or could easily find out. If a person continually believes a pathological liar does that not make them a co-dependent?
I have personally boycotted Microsoft for over a decade. No Zune, no Xbox, and Windows Desktop only when forced (Employer and Public Schools often require it's use). My kid has been very happy to back my decision, he loves his Play Stations, PSP, iPod, etc...