It seems to me that if you use a journalling filesystem that journals everything, not just meta-data, you can just send the journal logs off to your backup device. Presuming your backup device starts with the same baseline data (i.e. a full level-zero dump) Then you would have the ability to restore your files, or entire filesystem, to the state it was at any point in time just by playing back the journal logs. Presumably a "smart" replay algorithm could be implemented that would use some sort of regular snapshots and "colescing" (sp?) of the logs to speed up restores (reducing the time spent doing the journal replay).
Such an approach would not require hooks into each device driver either, it would be entire at the filesystem level.
Welcome to the conversation, I've been responding to this comment:
The problem with your segregation is that Bush claims authority for both actions derive from the same authorization by congress. I'm pointing out that even his own allies in congress think he's overstepping the bounds of that authorization in at least one case and there are certainly other, less friendly to the executive branch, members of congress that think he is overstepping the bounds in guantanamo too.
Ultimately though, your response is just bigger hand-waving intended to deflect the "just following orders" accusation. Congress may or may not have authorized the executive to act that way, but he is under no obligation to do so - permission is not imperative.
What correlation undoubtedly does do, unless you have a total lack of curiosity about the nature of the world, is to suggest interesting avenues of research.
The current administration is operating within the bounds set by Congress. If you want to find blame, find blame with them for authorizing such detentions.
Oh no you didnt. I know you didnt jus say that Bush is "only following orders."
The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.
Repeating one of Rush Limbaugh's deceptions does not bolster your case at all. 30 seconds with google would have been enough for you to confirm or deny limbaugh's story. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, it is like holding a sign over your head that says "don't take me seriously, I am incapable of independent thought."
The moussaoui laptop search never even went before the FISA court, much less was it denied by a 'libtard judge.'
Look at it this way - suppose a powerful Democrat gets murdered at a bar.
The differnce between your example and actual hate crime laws is that in your example additional punishment is for the premeditation, not for the expression of ideas. The expression may indicate premeditation, but the hate crime laws on the books are distinct and seperate from premeditation. Being a chocolate bunny fanatic and ultimately holding-up a candy store indicates just as much premeditation as hating indians and then holding-up a 7-11. But the way the hate crime laws are, you'd get an additional conviction above and beyond 'pre-meditated robbery' for the 7-11 hold-up, but not for the candy-store hold-up.
But that my point is this: hate crime laws are not censorship, because no one is being stopped from speaking. Hate crime laws are government sponsored preaching, since they basically say "You were already bad because you killed someone, but being a racist makes you even worse."
Those two sentences are contradictory. Censorship is not simply the direct prohibiting of expression, it encompasses a much broader area of government actions, including exactly what you describe. In other words, freedom of expression can not be contingent on other behaviour, otherwise is it not free.
If you want to nitpick, here's the logic of my sentence:
No, actually it was you who wanted to nitpick by misunderstanding my original post through grouping two things much more closely than I said they were.
I said hate speech is protected as free speech;
In the simplfied example, the only difference is the use of a racial slur - i.e. speech, and that nets the guy 10 years in prison.
as evidence in a trial.
Not just evidence, justification for sentencing. No matter how you wiggle, the guy is being punished for holding views contrary to the wishes of the government. That is censorship.
Look at it this way - If he shoots the guy and says, "Lollipops Rule!" he doesn't get the extra 10 years. So - the expression of the guy's love for lollipops is ok with the state, but the expression of his hate is not ok with the state. One idea - OK, another idea - NOT OK. That's censorship.
And yet you link to a story about censorship that has nothing to do with free markets or property rights?
Please learn your boolean operators -> AND is one, OR is another, don't forget NOT and then there are all the synonyms.
hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment here in the US
That is a laugh - "hate crimes" laws are all over the books. Shoot a man, get 10 years in a jail, shoot him and make a racial slur afterwards and get 20 years. The guy is just as dead either way, but expressing an opinion that the government wishes to censor gets you extra prison time.
If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach
There is a logical flaw in the implied argument that, free speech empowers the neo-nazis (replace with generic bad-guy-meme). Making certain communications illegal, just pushes them underground. Above ground, it can be disputed, under ground it exists in a vacuum and people exposed to it there will hear no disputing arguments and are thus more likely to be swayed. One might consider the growing numbers of neo-nazis in austria and germany, despite such censorship, to be proof that the censorship approach does not work.
Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.
However, restrictions on "hate speech" and the like means we are already doing that job for them.
The west isn't usually so unabashedly blatant about the censorship that goes on here. Instead, prefering to hide behind twisted versions of ideals like free markets and property rights.
But every once in a while you get something that is just as messed up as in China:
the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.
So, instead of giving up more control of public utilities, give them less control and put it back in the hands of the public.
Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' After all, it is only the pipes that are a public resource (or really the right-of-way to lay the 'pipes' across private property) - content is not a public resource so companies that get a government granted monopoly should not be allowed to leverage that monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets. Once upon a time, that kind of abuse would have been considered a clear violation of the sherman anti-trust act, now it seems to be taken for granted, the public good be damned.
Interestingly, VLC uses around 90% CPU, vs. around 80% for WMP10.
I think your video card is of recent enough vintage that it may be able to accelrate WM9 decode. It also may be that using the overlay vs "renderless mode" (which think WMP10 can do, but VLC can not) is less efficient.
VLC doesn't seem to want to play these videos - I suppose I'll need to update codecs or something equally exciting.
VLC won't play the copy-restricted stuff (you have to pay MS big bucks just to use MS's own DRM-enforcing codecs from your own software player (player binary has to be 'inspected' and crypto-signed by MS), there is no chance that MS would bless an independent implementation like VLC).
BTW, VLC's codecs are all pretty much self-contained, unlike the whole directx system in windows itself, so if you have the latest release of VLC you have the latest codecs for VLC too.
If Hadith is untrustworthy, why do muslims keep it and refer to it all the time? If muslims accepts hadiths as true,
They don't accept hadith as truth (divine or otherwise), you are confusing it with the quran. Hadith are primarily guidelines for everyday life and secondarily historical accounts and there is plenty of debate about the merits of all the hadith - some are more respected than others, but none are believed to be perfect or infallible.
Why do we have to make justifications to make Islam sounds like the Religion of Peace?
I dunno, why do people randomly insert flame-bait rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Not just one guy who was senile, but two, likely old guys.
Both of those are reporting stuff sourced from Urwa (Abu Hisham) who was approximately 70 when he wrote it and reportedly senile. Those two authors of sunni hadith actually lived somewhere around 200 years after Urwa's own death.
These two collections are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims"
This statement is misleading - most "authentic" in terms of rules and religious rites (which are the primary 'use' of hadith), but not so much about historical events.
Anyway when talking about Mohammed, since that's alot of conjecture, after the fact writing and since alot of the New Testament was written after the fact and sometimes by odd fellas, Aisha's being underage has as much factual basis as your arguements against it.
I am not sure what the new testament has to do with it, but the basic difference is that the evidence for her being of age is consistent with other reports that are not concerned with her marriage (i.e. no axe to grind) - comments about her age in comparison to her siblings, and her age at certain well defined events that together with simple math strongly suggest that she was not a child bride.
The Sunni believe it
If you ask most sunni, they aren't likely to be aware that there even is a controversy, it seems to be more of an issue manufactured in the west. The average sunni on the street will tell you that she was of appropriate age to marry and then ask you why you would even think otherwise?
While debateable, it is unlikely. All evidence for it seems to be sourced from one guy, who wrote about it many decades after the fact, when he was known to be senile. However, some people prefer to ignore the much stronger contradictory evidence and focus on the writings of a senile old man because it validates their own personal world-view.
Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her betrothal to Muhammad, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia. Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, p. 38.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50.
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH. Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, p. 377.
According to Abd ar Rahman ibn Abi Zannad, Aisha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma. (Siyar alâm an-nubalâ', adh-Dhahabî, Vol. 2, p. 289, Mu'assat ar-Risâla, Beirut, 1992). That is also confirmed by Ibn Kathir (al-Bidâya wa-n-nihâya, Ibn Kathîr, Bd. 8, S. 371, Dâr al-Fikr al-Arabî, al-Dschîza, 1933). Virtually all other historical reports also agree in this matter. Ibn Kathir also reports that Asma was present when her son died in 73 AH and she herself died 5 days thereafter (other reports differ slightly, giving between 5 and 100 days between the deaths of the two). At the time of her death she was 100 years old (al-Bidâya wa-n-nihâya, Ibn Kathîr, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dâr al-Fikr al-Arabî, al-Dschîza, 1933). This is also confirmed by Ibn Hadschar al-Asqalânî who reports that she died in 73 or 74 AH at the age of 100 years. (Taqrîb at-tahdhîb, Ibn Hadschar al-Asqalânî, p. 654, Bâb fi-n-nisâ', harfu l-alif, Lucknow). But this means, of course, that Asma was 27 or 28 years old at 1 AH and the 10 years youger Aisha already 17 or 18, so when Muhammad and Aisha started to live together she was already 19 or 20.
In a hadith of Bukhari, Aisha says: "I was a young girl (dschâriya) when Surah al-Qamar was revealed (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Kitâb at-tafsîr, Bâb qaulihî Taâlâ "Bali-s-sâatu mauiduhum wa-s-sâatu ad-hâ wa-amarr"). That Surah was revealed 8 years before Hijra and at that time Aisha would have been at most a baby (sabiyya) had she been only 9 years old at the age of her marriage. The word dschariya is most fitting for a 6-13 year old which would mean her age of marriage would be anywhere between 14 and 21.
Aisha was already termed 'bikr', a term generally meaning virgin adult woman even when the marriage was discussed, i.e. 3 years before the actual marriage. (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. 210, Dâr Ihyâ' at-Turâth al-Arabî, Beirut).
My Athlon 1800+ (1.5Ghz) seems to cope fine when playing back HD video. Am I missing something?
Nope. VLC (all software decode, no hardware assist except YUV->RGB in the overlay) will playback 720/1080i mpeg2 just fine on that guy. Now WM9 or h.264, it is a whole different story. VLC on 2.3GHz Athlon just barely plays back WM9 1920x1080p material, skipping once every few minutes.
Send a letter? I'd rather be literal than illogical.
I went back and looked at the reply chain. You must have an inferiority complex. You always pick the most irrelevant point to focus in on, and ignore any clairfying or supporting points. Its like you want to make life hard for yourself. Good luck with that.
We're talking about getting through a corporate firewall, not passing through the underground railroad.
Since the article is about china's firewall that is not the only thing we are talking about, but in your quest to be wrong I can see how you focused in on yet another irrelevant point.
"That's great, so long as you can connect to the URL updater's address in the first place (since your company firewalled it as per my first statement)."
Or you could use the telephone, or send a letter - after all you have a personal relationship with the person operating the proxy. Not to mention about a bazillion different ways to get 4 bytes of information across the firewall without being noticed. Ebay auctions, geocities pages, whois lookups, cryptic comments in blogs about tulip lovers, usenet posts, the list is endless as long as the firewall lets anything through.
It's not like their software or hardware won't allow them to block by domain name, you know...
Slashbots sure are a bunch of literalists. Do I really need to spell out that you can use a numeric ip address in a URL?
If you were smart you would say that the firewallers could then just block entire netblocks. They could - but the more people runing this tool, the more netblocks that must be completely blocked until eventually most of the internet is inaccessible.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you've made it clear that he sure didn't get his money's worth from your public school education.
It seems to me that if you use a journalling filesystem that journals everything, not just meta-data, you can just send the journal logs off to your backup device. Presuming your backup device starts with the same baseline data (i.e. a full level-zero dump) Then you would have the ability to restore your files, or entire filesystem, to the state it was at any point in time just by playing back the journal logs. Presumably a "smart" replay algorithm could be implemented that would use some sort of regular snapshots and "colescing" (sp?) of the logs to speed up restores (reducing the time spent doing the journal replay).
Such an approach would not require hooks into each device driver either, it would be entire at the filesystem level.
Why not buy one or two $30 wireless routers and a directional antenna and share with a neighbor that isn't behind a church then.
Honestly
Spoken like a woman who doesn't understand that the measure of a man's true worth is the size of his tower.
Welcome to the conversation, I've been responding to this comment:
The problem with your segregation is that Bush claims authority for both actions derive from the same authorization by congress. I'm pointing out that even his own allies in congress think he's overstepping the bounds of that authorization in at least one case and there are certainly other, less friendly to the executive branch, members of congress that think he is overstepping the bounds in guantanamo too.
Ultimately though, your response is just bigger hand-waving intended to deflect the "just following orders" accusation. Congress may or may not have authorized the executive to act that way, but he is under no obligation to do so - permission is not imperative.
I said he is operating within the bounds set by Congress.
Well so far, you even have republicans disputing that claim.
His explanation, observed Sen. Arlen Specter...'defies logic and plain English.'"
What correlation undoubtedly does do, unless you have a total lack of curiosity about the nature of the world,
is to suggest interesting avenues of research.
You misspelled legislation.
The current administration is operating within the bounds set by Congress.
If you want to find blame, find blame with them for authorizing such detentions.
Oh no you didnt. I know you didnt jus say that Bush is "only following orders."
Didn't RMS blow a gasket a few weeks ago, talking about how Creative Commons sucks eggs because it includes optional clauses?
No he did not.
His complaint had nothing to do with "optional clauses."
It was all about entirely different licenses being grouped under a single name.
The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.
Repeating one of Rush Limbaugh's deceptions does not bolster your case at all. 30 seconds with google would have been enough for you to confirm or deny limbaugh's story. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, it is like holding a sign over your head that says "don't take me seriously, I am incapable of independent thought."
The moussaoui laptop search never even went before the FISA court, much less was it denied by a 'libtard judge.'
Look at it this way - suppose a powerful Democrat gets murdered at a bar.
The differnce between your example and actual hate crime laws is that in your example additional punishment is for the premeditation, not for the expression of ideas. The expression may indicate premeditation, but the hate crime laws on the books are distinct and seperate from premeditation. Being a chocolate bunny fanatic and ultimately holding-up a candy store indicates just as much premeditation as hating indians and then holding-up a 7-11. But the way the hate crime laws are, you'd get an additional conviction above and beyond 'pre-meditated robbery' for the 7-11 hold-up, but not for the candy-store hold-up.
But that my point is this: hate crime laws are not censorship, because no one is being stopped from speaking. Hate crime laws are government sponsored preaching, since they basically say "You were already bad because you killed someone, but being a racist makes you even worse."
Those two sentences are contradictory. Censorship is not simply the direct prohibiting of expression, it encompasses a much broader area of government actions, including exactly what you describe. In other words, freedom of expression can not be contingent on other behaviour, otherwise is it not free.
If you want to nitpick, here's the logic of my sentence:
No, actually it was you who wanted to nitpick by misunderstanding my original post through grouping two things much more closely than I said they were.
I said hate speech is protected as free speech;
In the simplfied example, the only difference is the use of a racial slur - i.e. speech, and that nets the guy 10 years in prison.
as evidence in a trial.
Not just evidence, justification for sentencing. No matter how you wiggle, the guy is being punished for holding views contrary to the wishes of the government. That is censorship.
Look at it this way - If he shoots the guy and says, "Lollipops Rule!" he doesn't get the extra 10 years. So - the expression of the guy's love for lollipops is ok with the state, but the expression of his hate is not ok with the state. One idea - OK, another idea - NOT OK. That's censorship.
And yet you link to a story about censorship that has nothing to do with free markets or property rights?
Please learn your boolean operators -> AND is one, OR is another, don't forget NOT and then there are all the synonyms.
hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment here in the US
That is a laugh - "hate crimes" laws are all over the books. Shoot a man, get 10 years in a jail, shoot him and make a racial slur afterwards and get 20 years. The guy is just as dead either way, but expressing an opinion that the government wishes to censor gets you extra prison time.
OMG!
What-ever.
Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue.
So what is my $50/month cable-modem bill? Chopped liver?
If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach
There is a logical flaw in the implied argument that, free speech empowers the neo-nazis (replace with generic bad-guy-meme). Making certain communications illegal, just pushes them underground. Above ground, it can be disputed, under ground it exists in a vacuum and people exposed to it there will hear no disputing arguments and are thus more likely to be swayed. One might consider the growing numbers of neo-nazis in austria and germany, despite such censorship, to be proof that the censorship approach does not work.
Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.
However, restrictions on "hate speech" and the like means we are already doing that job for them.
The west isn't usually so unabashedly blatant about the censorship that goes on here. Instead, prefering to hide behind twisted versions of ideals like free markets and property rights.
/ 393403p-333442c.html
But every once in a while you get something that is just as messed up as in China:
http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/front/story
the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.
So, instead of giving up more control of public utilities, give them less control and put it back in the hands of the public.
Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' After all, it is only the pipes that are a public resource (or really the right-of-way to lay the 'pipes' across private property) - content is not a public resource so companies that get a government granted monopoly should not be allowed to leverage that monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets. Once upon a time, that kind of abuse would have been considered a clear violation of the sherman anti-trust act, now it seems to be taken for granted, the public good be damned.
Interestingly, VLC uses around 90% CPU, vs. around 80% for WMP10.
I think your video card is of recent enough vintage that it may be able to accelrate WM9 decode. It also may be that using the overlay vs "renderless mode" (which think WMP10 can do, but VLC can not) is less efficient.
VLC doesn't seem to want to play these videos - I suppose I'll need to update codecs or something equally exciting.
VLC won't play the copy-restricted stuff (you have to pay MS big bucks just to use MS's own DRM-enforcing codecs from your own software player (player binary has to be 'inspected' and crypto-signed by MS), there is no chance that MS would bless an independent implementation like VLC).
BTW, VLC's codecs are all pretty much self-contained, unlike the whole directx system in windows itself, so if you have the latest release of VLC you have the latest codecs for VLC too.
If Hadith is untrustworthy, why do muslims keep it and refer to it all the time? If muslims accepts hadiths as true,
They don't accept hadith as truth (divine or otherwise), you are confusing it with the quran. Hadith are primarily guidelines for everyday life and secondarily historical accounts and there is plenty of debate about the merits of all the hadith - some are more respected than others, but none are believed to be perfect or infallible.
Why do we have to make justifications to make Islam sounds like the Religion of Peace?
I dunno, why do people randomly insert flame-bait rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Not just one guy who was senile, but two, likely old guys.
Both of those are reporting stuff sourced from Urwa (Abu Hisham) who was approximately 70 when he wrote it and reportedly senile. Those two authors of sunni hadith actually lived somewhere around 200 years after Urwa's own death.
These two collections are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims"
This statement is misleading - most "authentic" in terms of rules and religious rites (which are the primary 'use' of hadith), but not so much about historical events.
Anyway when talking about Mohammed, since that's alot of conjecture, after the fact writing and since alot of the New Testament was written after the fact and sometimes by odd fellas, Aisha's being underage has as much factual basis as your arguements against it.
I am not sure what the new testament has to do with it, but the basic difference is that the evidence for her being of age is consistent with other reports that are not concerned with her marriage (i.e. no axe to grind) - comments about her age in comparison to her siblings, and her age at certain well defined events that together with simple math strongly suggest that she was not a child bride.
The Sunni believe it
If you ask most sunni, they aren't likely to be aware that there even is a controversy, it seems to be more of an issue manufactured in the west. The average sunni on the street will tell you that she was of appropriate age to marry and then ask you why you would even think otherwise?
While debateable, it is unlikely. All evidence for it seems to be sourced from one guy, who wrote about it many decades after the fact, when he was known to be senile. However, some people prefer to ignore the much stronger contradictory evidence and focus on the writings of a senile old man because it validates their own personal world-view.
From wikipedia:
My Athlon 1800+ (1.5Ghz) seems to cope fine when playing back HD video. Am I missing something?
Nope. VLC (all software decode, no hardware assist except YUV->RGB in the overlay) will playback 720/1080i mpeg2 just fine on that guy. Now WM9 or h.264, it is a whole different story. VLC on 2.3GHz Athlon just barely plays back WM9 1920x1080p material, skipping once every few minutes.
Send a letter? I'd rather be literal than illogical.
I went back and looked at the reply chain. You must have an inferiority complex. You always pick the most irrelevant point to focus in on, and ignore any clairfying or supporting points. Its like you want to make life hard for yourself. Good luck with that.
We're talking about getting through a corporate firewall, not passing through the underground railroad.
Since the article is about china's firewall that is not the only thing we are talking about, but in your quest to be wrong I can see how you focused in on yet another irrelevant point.
"That's great, so long as you can connect to the URL updater's address in the first place (since your company firewalled it as per my first statement)."
Or you could use the telephone, or send a letter - after all you have a personal relationship with the person operating the proxy. Not to mention about a bazillion different ways to get 4 bytes of information across the firewall without being noticed. Ebay auctions, geocities pages, whois lookups, cryptic comments in blogs about tulip lovers, usenet posts, the list is endless as long as the firewall lets anything through.
Literal and unimaginative.
It's not like their software or hardware won't allow them to block by domain name, you know...
Slashbots sure are a bunch of literalists. Do I really need to spell out that you can use a numeric ip address in a URL?
If you were smart you would say that the firewallers could then just block entire netblocks. They could - but the more people runing this tool, the more netblocks that must be completely blocked until eventually most of the internet is inaccessible.