While the article heavily focuses on Reagan and the SDI, the connection (particularly to SDI) simply doesn't seem plausible to me. If the US can shoot down your missiles, what difference does it make if you can fire them after a decapitation strike? Further, nuclear missiles and traditional bombers give you plenty of warning, and time to do your part to end life on this Earth.
However, if the US can send a nuclear-armed stealth aircraft into your country (as it was operationally capable of since at least 1983) and obliterate your entire chain of command without anyone knowing about it until they were shadows on a wall, *that* is something to worry about, and a reason to build such a monstrosity as a counter-measure.
It also lends some justification to the paranoia about a desire to strike first: the F-117 is a weapon that would allow Reagan do it, and think he could get away with it.
"I'm a cranky old bastard who got fucked when the federal government enforced the law against an out of control monopoly (I may have even been involved in the case)! That has nothing to do with how much SBC sucked or didn't suck, or how much or little the AT&T name was worth, but I'M STILL BITTER ABOUT IT! Damned whippersnappers! I hate you all! Arrrrrggggghhhh!"
Their marketing concern is not to have Michael Moore show up at some toxic waste dump in Bangladesh where 11yo girls are slaving away for a brutal local warlord in 120deg heat mounting components. I don't know that the marketing department's consideration of basic human decency is really all that changeable, honestly.
On the other hand, if you farm it out, you can always claim you had no idea The General (we didn't even suspect he wasn't a real general) was cutting the children's arms off to help them find the lost capacitors...
At the same time we also introduced an extra layer of abstraction to the signing software, so we can authorize signers using their existing internal kerberos credentials.
So then you're able to go get a ticket authorizing you to access the "signing software" and sign a package. Possibly using LDAP attributes to control what tickets you are authorized to have granted?
Possibly a poorly secured LDAP system (or frontend)?
It's only a revelation to those who believe it. Thankfully there are those who know better. Danese Cooper was no longer a SUN employee as of March 2005. Her words (from after that) are therefore not representative of SUN.
Essentially you're saying that the only people who can be trusted to tell the truth about any company are those who have something to loose by doing so. I must say, that level of credulity is hard to come by these days... for good reason.
Ah yes, let the conspiracy theories begin! The same sad old song. Despite the fact that SUN has released more code than any other company under *free* and *open source* software licenses they're to blame for everything.
It's funny because when the Apache Software Foundation has a license that is incompatible with the GPL, no one gave them grief, but SUN moves to one and suddenly they're evil...
It's funny because when the Apache Software Foundation has a license that is incompatible with the GPL, no one gave them grief, but SUN moves to one and suddenly they're evil...
The real problem here is NOT the CDDL, Apache License, etc. The real problem is the GPL. There are many licenses classified as *free software* by the FSF that are incompatible. What makes SUN's any more evil than the other ones? If Richard's (RMS) criteria for what is free software isn't good enough to make all *free software* licenses compatible, then perhaps his criteria is wrong?
Ahem:
A straw man `argument' is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized and disassembled (hence the straw man metaphor) before the eyes and ears of an otherwise impartial audience unfamiliar with the facts and history of an issue or case. Wikipedia
Apache does not try to mix and match licenses in a single application, framework, or library. If all of cdrtools was re-licensed under the CDDL (you do have your copyright assignment statements in order, I presume), then I don't think this would be that big of an issue. But re-licensing pieces of an application suite in a new license---one which you agree is incompatible---means you have at best a useless inconsistency, and at worse an unenforceable, incoherent mess.
A couple years ago, I went to Fermilab to see a Chomsky talk. Kucinich bumper-stickers spread thine selves across the parking lot... Anyhow, someone there (I was in the overflow CCTV room) asked Mr. Chomsky what he thought of the electronic voting machines, paper trails, etc. mugging for a tirade about the death of democracy. His heavily paraphrased response:
Why are you worried about one side of the 'Business Party' playing with the margins? 50% of the eligable voters don't even bother. Further, abstension in U.S. elections occurs for the same reasons as abstensions occur everywhere else: there's no "None of the Above" box to punch. Fix that problem (which in practice prevents half of the populace from voting) before you get all worried about the one-half-of-one-percent that's being fudged.
Really? You own the means of production--that is, you own the prerequisite materials (or "capital") that labor power is combined with the produce products? And so being in the position of owning the capital allows you to hire others to add the value of their time, and call the difference between the money you pay those employees and the costs of keeping the capital "profits"?
If that's not the case, you ain't a capitalist. You may be pro-market, but that's something else altogether.
If it is the case, consider distributing the profits more equitably with your employees--or perhaps even allowing a semblance of democratic procedure in your internal decision-making process. IOW, consider not being a capitalist:-).
Amazing how much Slashdot has changed in the 7 years I've been reading it. 5000 Opterons in a tractor trailer, and not a single mention of data havens or taking first place with SETI@home. tsk tsk tsk...
For some reason, the depths of depravity that humanity is willing to plunge -- in this case, celebrating the death of a young woman and then claiming she "inspired" some terrorist act against the Fullbright scholarship people because she didn't like watching people's homes get buldozed and had some choice words about Bush -- never ceases to disgust me. I don't celebrate the deaths of the Fullbright people, or the Israeli people, or the Palestinian people, or Ms. Corrie. None of them deserved to die.
Secondly, if you really think that bulldozing someone's house is a way to stop terrorism, you aren't thinking too hard. The house isn't strapping dynamite to it's chest and running into a market -- though the newly homeless former residents may well consider it in retaliation. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would think her presence (and subsequent murder) would actually lessen terrorism against U.S. citizens, as she has illustrated that there are people in the States that are willing to go as far as can be gone for other people when we conclude they're getting fucked over -- even if those peoples' religion is Islam, their nationality is Palestinian, and the fucking is taking place with the support of our government and businesses.
Oh, and so long as we're throwing regurgitated, "disconnect brain, engage mouth" ad-hominems in favor of a reasoned debate, if I repeat "bloody wingnut" 5 times, will you step through my mirror and try to kill me?
Finally, this tangent is so rediculously offtopic for a discussion of Cisco, China, censorship, and corporate responsibility as to be laughable.
Of course, the case itself was a bunch of private citizens who didn't want their homes to get buildozed for Pfizer, Inc.'s profits, illustrating that wealthy organizations have vastly more pull than J. Random Voter among politicians.
Ironically, it was the Conservatives on the court (Scalia and Thomas) who dissented and said the Federal gov't should be able to regulate Eminent Domain, along with Rehnquist and O'Connor, who said that cities shouldn't be able to take your home to give to developers, no matter what the city's development "plan" promises in the way of tax revenues and employment.
Slashdot Mirror
While the article heavily focuses on Reagan and the SDI, the connection (particularly to SDI) simply doesn't seem plausible to me. If the US can shoot down your missiles, what difference does it make if you can fire them after a decapitation strike? Further, nuclear missiles and traditional bombers give you plenty of warning, and time to do your part to end life on this Earth.
However, if the US can send a nuclear-armed stealth aircraft into your country (as it was operationally capable of since at least 1983) and obliterate your entire chain of command without anyone knowing about it until they were shadows on a wall, *that* is something to worry about, and a reason to build such a monstrosity as a counter-measure.
It also lends some justification to the paranoia about a desire to strike first: the F-117 is a weapon that would allow Reagan do it, and think he could get away with it.
Spoken like a man who has never stared into the abyss of doing dynamic zones with perl.
Yes, your crazy paranoiac grandma who clutches her purse at the sight of a black man is definitely the one to give a gun to.
"I'm a cranky old bastard who got fucked when the federal government enforced the law against an out of control monopoly (I may have even been involved in the case)! That has nothing to do with how much SBC sucked or didn't suck, or how much or little the AT&T name was worth, but I'M STILL BITTER ABOUT IT! Damned whippersnappers! I hate you all! Arrrrrggggghhhh!"
Their marketing concern is not to have Michael Moore show up at some toxic waste dump in Bangladesh where 11yo girls are slaving away for a brutal local warlord in 120deg heat mounting components. I don't know that the marketing department's consideration of basic human decency is really all that changeable, honestly.
On the other hand, if you farm it out, you can always claim you had no idea The General (we didn't even suspect he wasn't a real general) was cutting the children's arms off to help them find the lost capacitors...
So then you're able to go get a ticket authorizing you to access the "signing software" and sign a package. Possibly using LDAP attributes to control what tickets you are authorized to have granted?
Possibly a poorly secured LDAP system (or frontend)?
Essentially you're saying that the only people who can be trusted to tell the truth about any company are those who have something to loose by doing so. I must say, that level of credulity is hard to come by these days... for good reason.
Ahem:
Apache does not try to mix and match licenses in a single application, framework, or library. If all of cdrtools was re-licensed under the CDDL (you do have your copyright assignment statements in order, I presume), then I don't think this would be that big of an issue. But re-licensing pieces of an application suite in a new license---one which you agree is incompatible---means you have at best a useless inconsistency, and at worse an unenforceable, incoherent mess.
A couple years ago, I went to Fermilab to see a Chomsky talk. Kucinich bumper-stickers spread thine selves across the parking lot... Anyhow, someone there (I was in the overflow CCTV room) asked Mr. Chomsky what he thought of the electronic voting machines, paper trails, etc. mugging for a tirade about the death of democracy. His heavily paraphrased response:
Why are you worried about one side of the 'Business Party' playing with the margins? 50% of the eligable voters don't even bother. Further, abstension in U.S. elections occurs for the same reasons as abstensions occur everywhere else: there's no "None of the Above" box to punch. Fix that problem (which in practice prevents half of the populace from voting) before you get all worried about the one-half-of-one-percent that's being fudged.
Really? You own the means of production--that is, you own the prerequisite materials (or "capital") that labor power is combined with the produce products? And so being in the position of owning the capital allows you to hire others to add the value of their time, and call the difference between the money you pay those employees and the costs of keeping the capital "profits"?
:-).
If that's not the case, you ain't a capitalist. You may be pro-market, but that's something else altogether.
If it is the case, consider distributing the profits more equitably with your employees--or perhaps even allowing a semblance of democratic procedure in your internal decision-making process. IOW, consider not being a capitalist
Amazing how much Slashdot has changed in the 7 years I've been reading it. 5000 Opterons in a tractor trailer, and not a single mention of data havens or taking first place with SETI@home. tsk tsk tsk...
For some reason, the depths of depravity that humanity is willing to plunge -- in this case, celebrating the death of a young woman and then claiming she "inspired" some terrorist act against the Fullbright scholarship people because she didn't like watching people's homes get buldozed and had some choice words about Bush -- never ceases to disgust me. I don't celebrate the deaths of the Fullbright people, or the Israeli people, or the Palestinian people, or Ms. Corrie. None of them deserved to die.
Secondly, if you really think that bulldozing someone's house is a way to stop terrorism, you aren't thinking too hard. The house isn't strapping dynamite to it's chest and running into a market -- though the newly homeless former residents may well consider it in retaliation. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would think her presence (and subsequent murder) would actually lessen terrorism against U.S. citizens, as she has illustrated that there are people in the States that are willing to go as far as can be gone for other people when we conclude they're getting fucked over -- even if those peoples' religion is Islam, their nationality is Palestinian, and the fucking is taking place with the support of our government and businesses.
Oh, and so long as we're throwing regurgitated, "disconnect brain, engage mouth" ad-hominems in favor of a reasoned debate, if I repeat "bloody wingnut" 5 times, will you step through my mirror and try to kill me?
Finally, this tangent is so rediculously offtopic for a discussion of Cisco, China, censorship, and corporate responsibility as to be laughable.
Yes, it's called "the government".
Actually, for RAID 5 you'd need a minimum of 3 drives.
n dependent_disks
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_i
Of course, the case itself was a bunch of private citizens who didn't want their homes to get buildozed for Pfizer, Inc.'s profits, illustrating that wealthy organizations have vastly more pull than J. Random Voter among politicians. Ironically, it was the Conservatives on the court (Scalia and Thomas) who dissented and said the Federal gov't should be able to regulate Eminent Domain, along with Rehnquist and O'Connor, who said that cities shouldn't be able to take your home to give to developers, no matter what the city's development "plan" promises in the way of tax revenues and employment.