And where did I say copyright law no longer applies to the OpenBSD team? Because I don't see it.
I think it was implied, you said openbsd did the same thing, which is just a redirection. It doesnt matter what OpenBSD did what matters is whats happening right now for the purpose of this discussion, otherwise you say: you break my copyright so it is ethical for me to break yours.
In both cases, where the OpenBSD team violated the copyrights of the Linux community, and where one person in the Linux community proposed a patch that, had it been accepted, may have
violated the copyrights of the OpenBSD team in some instances, the OpenBSD team's behavior is utterly unprofessional, dishonest, insulting, abusive, and ultimately alienating. That's the issue here. This is why the OpenBSD community needs to take a good, hard, look at the way they do things and consider reforms before the group destroys any ounce of credibility it still has.
Whats dishonest about telling you your wrong and having to deal with a "lawyer" spouting falsehoods on mailing lists in order to further the agenda of the GPL without any reguard for the actual law itself?
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...
And as its permitted by NEITHER of the licenses you mention, so the copyright terms of the BSD license are protected by copyright LAW since they did not explicitly give away that protection in the terms of the license.
Is it really that hard to understand? Go back and read the terms of the BSD. Understand that if the BSD license does not explicitly give you a right, you don't have it and that right is protected by LAW. And since the BSD license does not allow you to relicense I think your claims are pretty well sunk, so my retort was apt. You are in fact wrong.
Reguardless of what you believe about the BSD vs GPL license debate you should at least understand whats going on before making stupid/ridiculous charges:
GPL, BSD or otherwise a copyrighted work cannot be relicensed under terms of another license without the authorization of the copyright holder.
Any talk about how they would let an "evil" corporation use the code without sharing is irrelevant, because:
the issue is not how you use the code but instead concern attempts to relicense the code without permission
distribution without releasing the source is NOT relicensing
Your opinion of the merits/intentions of the people involved is likewise irrelevant
If you violate copyright law, you should understand how/why you did so you don't do it again
You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Actually they cannot change the source code license. They are required by law to not alter the license. They just arent forced to re-release the source code. Should they decide to release the source code the code as taken from the BSD people is still BSD licensed and can be used under those terms.
Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back.
He isnt saying they violated the spirit of the license, he is saying they violated the letter of the law by altering the copyright on code without permission or authorization and without making any changes substantial enough to count as derivative work. It doesnt matter if they are GPL people or a corporation that action is illegal and Theo is calling them out on it.
And the OpenBSD team admitted fault and corrected the situation. Or what are you implying that because they did something wrong first copyright law no longer applies to them. Two wrongs make a right?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Stallman has more important things to worry about than yet another Unix-like kernel. Like, oh I dunno, FREEDOM, or some trifle like that.
This statement is laughable. It implies that Stallman is the lone proponent of freedom in a world filled with people trying to take it away. When in fact I think the opposite is true. Stallman is interested in restricting your freedoms. He wants to preserve freedom by restricting it slightly for the greater good. Sounds alot like a war for peace or giving up liberty for perceived security. Ultimately all stallman is doing is restricting your freedoms while telling you he is making you more free.
If he was truly interested in freedom he would just advocate tossing all code into the public domain then everyone has ultimate freedom over what they can do with the code. But wait that doesnt suit him because what Stallman really wants is for you to get permissions from the FSF before you use the code.
The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.
The logic here makes me wonder if the world has gone mad as well. Cullyfornia cannot tax sales in other states, this is forbidden(thankfully) by the US constitution. Cullyfornia also cannot control a company if they wish to sell this product in another state(unless the product is developed under an agreement thats exclusive with Cullyfornia). Its most likely that other states have emissions laws that are crafted by the auto lobby to make it difficult to introduce new technology to the market.
s/PC/TV/ and you are correct. Still I think they are patenting a new use for the V-Chip. The V-Chip itself allows you to block programs deemed too violent, too sexy, too whatever but it doesn't combine a group think dynamic to it where you say I would like to get all the blocked settings that the Catholics are using also combine that with the stuff that my neighbors block.
The cost of medicine has gone up because we can treat more diseases now. The treatments are expensive because a huge amount of regulation and up front costs is piled behind the treatments. Look at AIDs 30 years ago it was a death sentence to be diagnosed with AIDs fast forward to today and we have drugs that will keep you alive long enough for you to die from unrelated causes. The aggregate cost of medicine is up now because there is new treatments.
Reguardless of whether its publicly funded or privately researched the cost of medicine should be going up, its proof that the system is generating improvements and is capable of curing new diseases.
You know what you should do, you should email Linus and discuss the finer points of why he should use the same distro as you to validate your own choice.
Its all about consistency, you drop the magic words(open/free/technology/internet) and/.ers come running like moths to the flame. You say the forbidden words(parents, government, security) and we rattle our sabers from our bedrooms while yelling "Mom would it kill you to make me a sandwich!!".
Of course, I have to question why they're still using something as ancient as MUTT.
I specifically switched to mutt from thunderbird some months ago because thunderbird provides 0 features(useful) above what mutt has. Furthermore, once you know how to use mutt productivity shoots right up(imo). The most important "feature" of mutt is that I can access my email client from any machine that can I can run putty on(if it don't already have ssh).
I find the idea of people labeling a program or technology as useless because it is old more than just silly its stupid(aka defective brain stupid). I use vim as my editor in all my coding projects work or otherwise, and people typically react the same way. vim is old don't use that!! When ultimately it still is the best tool for the job as far as im concerned.
And then there are things like the cell phone, the internal combustion engine, and the personal computer...Technologies which actually are as influential as we think they are.... Sure there are times where we jam high tech where it doesn't belong...
Let me put forth an opinion that I know will be universally rejected here on slastdot, and keep in mind that I am a computer programmer.
Computers have not nearly been as revolutionary as people claim they are. In fact they more often than not are a detriment to an already efficient system. Take for instance schools, computers do no improve education, one could argue that they have inhibited it now that plagarism is becoming increasingly more common(lots of services online to find a pre written paper on a given topic). Where computers have been revolutionary is in fields where automation improves efficiency, and I'd argue that computers are'nt the real innovation there, the real innovation is the melding of machines and computers to create robots.
I'd argue that your tank is overstatement as well, military aviation did produce revolution, it dismantled the traditional notions of a Navy. The tank is just field artillery with armor tacked on, a progression of an earlier concept no great leap in technology.
Believe it or not, the criminal is not taking away your rights of property ownership. They are violating your rights, sure, but that's why we have a justice system in the first place.
When we let the criminals off and criminalize the victim thats when my rights go away. The criminal is depriving them through the understanding of people like yourself and government.
Here's the deal: Your property rights do not trump the right of another to life.
I think a person who attacks me or deprives me of property forfeits their right to protection from me, they have in essence invited what is about to come.
That's it. You are not Judge-fucking-Dredd.
What makes me not a judge is the fact that 1) I dont where robes and 2) I was not elected or appointed.
By the same token, should you stand by idly while someone breaks into your house and makes off with your TV? No, odds are that in confronting the thief they will show intent to harm you, at which point you are defending your own life. On the flip side, if you confront someone and they run empty handed, are you in the right when you shoot them dead in the back? Good luck with that.
So I have to let the person present a threat first? Essentially I have to say, ok criminal heres a jumpstart on killing me so I can comply with the law. If you are willing to break into a persons home, you deserve whatever fate that befalls you at the hands of the homeowner. That is the only policy that will keep criminals from thinking homes are easy pickings.
This in no way condones the criminal's act. The thief should be arrested, serve their time for breaking the law and compensate the victim for whatever loss they caused. If you think all that is served by just executing every thief out there, seek help.
I am actually against the government executing people, capital punishment is horrible. That said I believe its my right to defend myself as I see fit. This is the right of any human being. If I pull a gun on a criminal and say stop or ill shoot and he runs, why can't i shoot? Or am I not allowed to apprehend a criminal because that would be depriving them of somekind of freedom?
Get the stick out of your ass - you are just making up the nonsense that you "hear."
Its not nonsense I hear, its not legal for me in many states in this country to actively defend myself from theft, my physical person needs to be in danger. Defending my wallet is not an option. None of this takes into account that I have rights and that they are being violated and that as a human being I have a right and arguably a duty to defend myself and my rights. If that means shooting a dirtbag who steals a tv I have no problem with that. We are willing to kill thousands of people who never endangered my rights by bombing them but If I even for an instant think of defending my property rights I am suddenly evil.
So unless you want to argue that shooting a rapist in the back as he walks away from the scene of the crime is "defense" you've just been tilting at windmills.
Sure, and why not its far cheaper to make whatever family he has bury him than to prosecute and its more rewarding and fulfilling for the victim.
I certainly don't want to sit on my hands while some asshole carries my stereo out the front door, but if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property.
Whats at stake is more than my stereo or my TV or my kid's bike. What's at stake is my right to peacably own property. What's at stake is the rule of law in our free society. While on the outside its easy to say that a persons life is worth more than a TV, is a person's life worth more that the rights a criminal had to violate in order to take the TV? It is most definitely not.
A criminal is not just taking a TV from me, they are taking away my rights of property ownership. As long as we accept that a criminal is the victim when a burglary goes bad then we have no property rights, and essentially no rights at all since most rights descend from the concept of ownership.
But go ahead condone a criminals actions, tell him its ok by saying if a victim hurts you sue him, send him to jail. The world you want to live in is the one where criminals rob you all day because they know you are too weak and afraid to defend yourself. The rule of law is not just what the government does, but what free citizens do to uphold the law and that includes defending themselves from crime, and in turn making crime more difficult and unattractive to people who would normally become criminals.
For the simple reason that, as terrible as Identity Theft is, it's not as final as murder.
s/Idenitity Theft/rape/ and then say that women being raped should submit rather than kill the attacker if possible.
Ultimately your problem is saying that killing a person is always "murder" when its not. It is not murder to kill someone in self defense. Whether they are stealing property or inflicting violence on you, i believe that as humans we have the right to defend ourselves with whatever means we deem necessary.
Maybe you don't like that, maybe you think that victims have to sacrifice their rights to protect those who violate them. One thing is certain the more I hear this kind of nonsense the more annoyed I get at exactly how "politically correct" we've become.
Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others?
Isn't it obvious? Our massive standing army is being driven out through attrition. The insurgents don't have to win organized large scale battles in order to make US citizens at home demand that we leave the country. You also need to look at what others they are raining misery on, Iraqi's might not agree with you that the insurgents are terrorists raining misery on people
And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
Now your just being stupid. You CAN look at the methods of an enemy force and say "wow thats effective" without supporting the cause. And why should'nt we learn from how they are fighting against us? To say that the lesson is worthless because they are "evil" is just foolish and pig headed.
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
I think a volunteer militia in a free society is far more effective than a standing army. Especially if the people have access to military small arms. Japan rejected a west coast invasion of the US during WW2 as too dangerous because they believed that the American citizenry was too well armed. What it comes down to is that people who are defending their homes and who are patriotic about their government will destroy a large standing army through attrition. The French military didn't defeat the Germans, but the french resistance did(with allied help of course).
Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.
For another example of how smaller volunteer forces are more effective than large standing armies, look at how Finland was able to neutralize the threat of the soviet union during WW2. They were eventually compelled to surrender but the spirited fight they put up during the winter war is extremely eye opening and calls the conventional wisdom that large standing armies are the only means of defense into question.
And I would also like to ask: why can't they be effective today?
The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.
I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?
Actually, that country was called the United States of America, from 1783 to 1791 we had no standing army, but the federalists made short work of what was a beautiful experiment. The idea that amatuer state militias could defend a country effectively without the need for a standing army. In fact until the 20th century american wars were predominantly fought by volunteer state militias.
I cannot really agree with these tests that just compare "start up tasks" like opening a file or booting the OS. There often is a good reason not to focus too much on these events, because don't happen that often.
I have no idea what the hell your talking about, I open hundreds of files a day on average, and very likely thousands, any programmer working on a large project opens countless files all day long.
Again I say this is the fault of IT. In your case the managers that "FORCED" you to deploy before testing. The article is mainly concerned with the volume, limit the number of patches. Thats great, just leave vulnerabilities unpatched.
And what's so heinous about it?
Where I come from you are held accountable for your performance. And that includes no protection by blaming the consultant, if you hire a consultant and he fails, you AND the consultant are terminated.
Slashdot Mirror
And where did I say copyright law no longer applies to the OpenBSD team? Because I don't see it.
I think it was implied, you said openbsd did the same thing, which is just a redirection. It doesnt matter what OpenBSD did what matters is whats happening right now for the purpose of this discussion, otherwise you say: you break my copyright so it is ethical for me to break yours.
In both cases, where the OpenBSD team violated the copyrights of the Linux community, and where one person in the Linux community proposed a patch that, had it been accepted, may have violated the copyrights of the OpenBSD team in some instances, the OpenBSD team's behavior is utterly unprofessional, dishonest, insulting, abusive, and ultimately alienating. That's the issue here. This is why the OpenBSD community needs to take a good, hard, look at the way they do things and consider reforms before the group destroys any ounce of credibility it still has.
Whats dishonest about telling you your wrong and having to deal with a "lawyer" spouting falsehoods on mailing lists in order to further the agenda of the GPL without any reguard for the actual law itself?
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...
And as its permitted by NEITHER of the licenses you mention, so the copyright terms of the BSD license are protected by copyright LAW since they did not explicitly give away that protection in the terms of the license.
Is it really that hard to understand? Go back and read the terms of the BSD. Understand that if the BSD license does not explicitly give you a right, you don't have it and that right is protected by LAW. And since the BSD license does not allow you to relicense I think your claims are pretty well sunk, so my retort was apt. You are in fact wrong.
Reguardless of what you believe about the BSD vs GPL license debate you should at least understand whats going on before making stupid/ridiculous charges:
No. You are wrong. You cannot by LAW alter the license terms of something that you do not hold the copyright on.
You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Actually they cannot change the source code license. They are required by law to not alter the license. They just arent forced to re-release the source code. Should they decide to release the source code the code as taken from the BSD people is still BSD licensed and can be used under those terms.
Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back.
He isnt saying they violated the spirit of the license, he is saying they violated the letter of the law by altering the copyright on code without permission or authorization and without making any changes substantial enough to count as derivative work. It doesnt matter if they are GPL people or a corporation that action is illegal and Theo is calling them out on it.
And the OpenBSD team admitted fault and corrected the situation. Or what are you implying that because they did something wrong first copyright law no longer applies to them. Two wrongs make a right?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Stallman has more important things to worry about than yet another Unix-like kernel. Like, oh I dunno, FREEDOM, or some trifle like that.
This statement is laughable. It implies that Stallman is the lone proponent of freedom in a world filled with people trying to take it away. When in fact I think the opposite is true. Stallman is interested in restricting your freedoms. He wants to preserve freedom by restricting it slightly for the greater good. Sounds alot like a war for peace or giving up liberty for perceived security. Ultimately all stallman is doing is restricting your freedoms while telling you he is making you more free.
If he was truly interested in freedom he would just advocate tossing all code into the public domain then everyone has ultimate freedom over what they can do with the code. But wait that doesnt suit him because what Stallman really wants is for you to get permissions from the FSF before you use the code.
The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.
The logic here makes me wonder if the world has gone mad as well. Cullyfornia cannot tax sales in other states, this is forbidden(thankfully) by the US constitution. Cullyfornia also cannot control a company if they wish to sell this product in another state(unless the product is developed under an agreement thats exclusive with Cullyfornia). Its most likely that other states have emissions laws that are crafted by the auto lobby to make it difficult to introduce new technology to the market.
s/PC/TV/ and you are correct. Still I think they are patenting a new use for the V-Chip. The V-Chip itself allows you to block programs deemed too violent, too sexy, too whatever but it doesn't combine a group think dynamic to it where you say I would like to get all the blocked settings that the Catholics are using also combine that with the stuff that my neighbors block.
Has the cost of medicine in general gone down?
The cost of medicine has gone up because we can treat more diseases now. The treatments are expensive because a huge amount of regulation and up front costs is piled behind the treatments. Look at AIDs 30 years ago it was a death sentence to be diagnosed with AIDs fast forward to today and we have drugs that will keep you alive long enough for you to die from unrelated causes. The aggregate cost of medicine is up now because there is new treatments.
Reguardless of whether its publicly funded or privately researched the cost of medicine should be going up, its proof that the system is generating improvements and is capable of curing new diseases.
You know what you should do, you should email Linus and discuss the finer points of why he should use the same distro as you to validate your own choice.
Its all about consistency, you drop the magic words(open/free/technology/internet) and /.ers come running like moths to the flame. You say the forbidden words(parents, government, security) and we rattle our sabers from our bedrooms while yelling "Mom would it kill you to make me a sandwich!!".
Of course, I have to question why they're still using something as ancient as MUTT.
I specifically switched to mutt from thunderbird some months ago because thunderbird provides 0 features(useful) above what mutt has. Furthermore, once you know how to use mutt productivity shoots right up(imo). The most important "feature" of mutt is that I can access my email client from any machine that can I can run putty on(if it don't already have ssh).
I find the idea of people labeling a program or technology as useless because it is old more than just silly its stupid(aka defective brain stupid). I use vim as my editor in all my coding projects work or otherwise, and people typically react the same way. vim is old don't use that!! When ultimately it still is the best tool for the job as far as im concerned.
And then there are things like the cell phone, the internal combustion engine, and the personal computer...Technologies which actually are as influential as we think they are. ... Sure there are times where we jam high tech where it doesn't belong...
Let me put forth an opinion that I know will be universally rejected here on slastdot, and keep in mind that I am a computer programmer.
Computers have not nearly been as revolutionary as people claim they are. In fact they more often than not are a detriment to an already efficient system. Take for instance schools, computers do no improve education, one could argue that they have inhibited it now that plagarism is becoming increasingly more common(lots of services online to find a pre written paper on a given topic). Where computers have been revolutionary is in fields where automation improves efficiency, and I'd argue that computers are'nt the real innovation there, the real innovation is the melding of machines and computers to create robots.
I'd argue that your tank is overstatement as well, military aviation did produce revolution, it dismantled the traditional notions of a Navy. The tank is just field artillery with armor tacked on, a progression of an earlier concept no great leap in technology.
Believe it or not, the criminal is not taking away your rights of property ownership. They are violating your rights, sure, but that's why we have a justice system in the first place.
When we let the criminals off and criminalize the victim thats when my rights go away. The criminal is depriving them through the understanding of people like yourself and government.
Here's the deal: Your property rights do not trump the right of another to life.
I think a person who attacks me or deprives me of property forfeits their right to protection from me, they have in essence invited what is about to come.
That's it. You are not Judge-fucking-Dredd.
What makes me not a judge is the fact that 1) I dont where robes and 2) I was not elected or appointed.
By the same token, should you stand by idly while someone breaks into your house and makes off with your TV? No, odds are that in confronting the thief they will show intent to harm you, at which point you are defending your own life. On the flip side, if you confront someone and they run empty handed, are you in the right when you shoot them dead in the back? Good luck with that.
So I have to let the person present a threat first? Essentially I have to say, ok criminal heres a jumpstart on killing me so I can comply with the law. If you are willing to break into a persons home, you deserve whatever fate that befalls you at the hands of the homeowner. That is the only policy that will keep criminals from thinking homes are easy pickings.
This in no way condones the criminal's act. The thief should be arrested, serve their time for breaking the law and compensate the victim for whatever loss they caused. If you think all that is served by just executing every thief out there, seek help.
I am actually against the government executing people, capital punishment is horrible. That said I believe its my right to defend myself as I see fit. This is the right of any human being. If I pull a gun on a criminal and say stop or ill shoot and he runs, why can't i shoot? Or am I not allowed to apprehend a criminal because that would be depriving them of somekind of freedom?
Get the stick out of your ass - you are just making up the nonsense that you "hear."
Its not nonsense I hear, its not legal for me in many states in this country to actively defend myself from theft, my physical person needs to be in danger. Defending my wallet is not an option. None of this takes into account that I have rights and that they are being violated and that as a human being I have a right and arguably a duty to defend myself and my rights. If that means shooting a dirtbag who steals a tv I have no problem with that. We are willing to kill thousands of people who never endangered my rights by bombing them but If I even for an instant think of defending my property rights I am suddenly evil.
So unless you want to argue that shooting a rapist in the back as he walks away from the scene of the crime is "defense" you've just been tilting at windmills.
Sure, and why not its far cheaper to make whatever family he has bury him than to prosecute and its more rewarding and fulfilling for the victim.
I certainly don't want to sit on my hands while some asshole carries my stereo out the front door, but if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property.
Whats at stake is more than my stereo or my TV or my kid's bike. What's at stake is my right to peacably own property. What's at stake is the rule of law in our free society. While on the outside its easy to say that a persons life is worth more than a TV, is a person's life worth more that the rights a criminal had to violate in order to take the TV? It is most definitely not.
A criminal is not just taking a TV from me, they are taking away my rights of property ownership. As long as we accept that a criminal is the victim when a burglary goes bad then we have no property rights, and essentially no rights at all since most rights descend from the concept of ownership.
But go ahead condone a criminals actions, tell him its ok by saying if a victim hurts you sue him, send him to jail. The world you want to live in is the one where criminals rob you all day because they know you are too weak and afraid to defend yourself. The rule of law is not just what the government does, but what free citizens do to uphold the law and that includes defending themselves from crime, and in turn making crime more difficult and unattractive to people who would normally become criminals.
For the simple reason that, as terrible as Identity Theft is, it's not as final as murder.
s/Idenitity Theft/rape/ and then say that women being raped should submit rather than kill the attacker if possible.
Ultimately your problem is saying that killing a person is always "murder" when its not. It is not murder to kill someone in self defense. Whether they are stealing property or inflicting violence on you, i believe that as humans we have the right to defend ourselves with whatever means we deem necessary.
Maybe you don't like that, maybe you think that victims have to sacrifice their rights to protect those who violate them. One thing is certain the more I hear this kind of nonsense the more annoyed I get at exactly how "politically correct" we've become.
Wait isn't that exactly the point of free speech?
Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others?
Isn't it obvious? Our massive standing army is being driven out through attrition. The insurgents don't have to win organized large scale battles in order to make US citizens at home demand that we leave the country. You also need to look at what others they are raining misery on, Iraqi's might not agree with you that the insurgents are terrorists raining misery on people
And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
Now your just being stupid. You CAN look at the methods of an enemy force and say "wow thats effective" without supporting the cause. And why should'nt we learn from how they are fighting against us? To say that the lesson is worthless because they are "evil" is just foolish and pig headed.
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
I think a volunteer militia in a free society is far more effective than a standing army. Especially if the people have access to military small arms. Japan rejected a west coast invasion of the US during WW2 as too dangerous because they believed that the American citizenry was too well armed. What it comes down to is that people who are defending their homes and who are patriotic about their government will destroy a large standing army through attrition. The French military didn't defeat the Germans, but the french resistance did(with allied help of course).
Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.
For another example of how smaller volunteer forces are more effective than large standing armies, look at how Finland was able to neutralize the threat of the soviet union during WW2. They were eventually compelled to surrender but the spirited fight they put up during the winter war is extremely eye opening and calls the conventional wisdom that large standing armies are the only means of defense into question.
And I would also like to ask: why can't they be effective today?
The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.
I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?
Actually, that country was called the United States of America, from 1783 to 1791 we had no standing army, but the federalists made short work of what was a beautiful experiment. The idea that amatuer state militias could defend a country effectively without the need for a standing army. In fact until the 20th century american wars were predominantly fought by volunteer state militias.
I cannot really agree with these tests that just compare "start up tasks" like opening a file or booting the OS. There often is a good reason not to focus too much on these events, because don't happen that often.
I have no idea what the hell your talking about, I open hundreds of files a day on average, and very likely thousands, any programmer working on a large project opens countless files all day long.
No. What you said is not an analogy. Normal bounty hunters would look for exploiters on the lamb.
Again I say this is the fault of IT. In your case the managers that "FORCED" you to deploy before testing. The article is mainly concerned with the volume, limit the number of patches. Thats great, just leave vulnerabilities unpatched.
And what's so heinous about it?
Where I come from you are held accountable for your performance. And that includes no protection by blaming the consultant, if you hire a consultant and he fails, you AND the consultant are terminated.