Contrary to what you believe, religion does not provide any of these things. A trouble-free childhood with caring parents and a continuing lack of existential worries can do miracles, though.
Because you say so, I guess.
Yes, caring parents and lack of worries is very positive, but there were presumably caring parents and carefree individuals before anyone invented religion as well.
Religious belief has a purpose, that much is clear. Whether it is possible to replace it now with something else remains to be seen.
You may or may not be right about it being a delusion, but I doubt the world will be any better than before. People will just change the excuses for doing these things.
We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.
You should not use one data point to compare the effectiveness of different countries' law enforcement especially when discussing different situations.
Terrorists are going to succeed eventually as long as they are capable and motivated to keep trying. The question is whether those laws have cut down the rate of successful attempts and arrests are only one of many variables in that calculation.
They were that by background, not conviction. It may have informed the flavor of their Marxism, just like if I became a Marxist and decided that I really liked Easter, I might reform Easter into a worker's spring festival where you could hunt for hidden eggs (all red of course) and have some solemn processions of workers and soldiers. But if I persecute my ethnic religion, ignore its core rules, and visibly espouse atheism and Marxism, I'm no longer a Christian and using that label on me is mere background color only of interest to biographers.
Yes, they did abolish religions as threats, but the abolition of religion was also a central facet of the Marxist program. Marxism required the end of religion to come about.
That is merely a turn of phrase. It is important to understand that someone like Hitler did not elevate religion to something where using the world 'god' would imply that he was acting in behalf of some deity. Everything he said or did was subordinated to and used to support his own power and his principle of Germanic superiority. He was the ubermensch, conventional morality did not apply to him in the pursuit of what he determined to be the furthering of his own values.
If I was someone who was functionally an atheist, and I knew that you'd applaud me for simply using a conventional phrase that happened to refer to 'god', why would you ever think I would avoid using that phrase?
He didn't even have to pretend to be a theist. All he had to do is simply use common turns of phrase and let the people listening to him come to their own conclusions. I'm certain that even convinced atheists have said 'god damnit' on occasion, despite their complete disbelief in a deity or an afterlife in which one could be damned.
Hitler was almost certainly an atheist or at least an agnostic in practice, labeling him a Catholic would be like labeling Trotsky as a Jew. Both true, but only in the barest sense of ethnic background.
Hitler really seems to have had no sincere beliefs in regard to religion for himself, he merely attempted to determine if a particular religion could be co-opted or if it had to be destroyed. While that doesn't make him an atheist necessarily, he just didn't think theology was important at all.
Ethnically, Hitler was a Catholic but considering his complete antipathy to the actual beliefs of that Church, makes him about as much a Roman Catholic as my Marxist Poli Sci professors were.
He had a belief in a Teutonic ethnic and "genetic" superiority, but frankly, this philosophy never reached the level of a consistent theology or even really discussed any authority which made Germans the Master Race. They were merely the Master Race, self-evidently.
In any event, a Hitler could just as easily exist in an atheistic world view as a religious one. He was a master manipulator of divisions and friction to make himself a third option.
I personally imagine that he probably thought that he would be a 'god' in the same sense that Roman emperors were: deified and bound to be celebrated by his victorious civilization as a paragon of a state cult or religion after he died. Thereafter part of ceremonies to inspire awe among future generations to maintain the state and the state philosophy.
Not that I am necessarily supporting the preceding sentiment, but in Vietnam, we spent our time avoiding the targets that we really should have had as objectives, like ground attack on Hanoi and various ports like Haiphong. We played defense all the time when the reality of the scenario is that we needed to invade North Vietnam, depose their leadership and then enforce a graduated transition to actual democracy after a period of occupation, education, and rebuilding.
Mind you, as we have seen with Iraq, successful occupation and rebuilding is also not a given, but it is a necessary step in concluding the threat more or less permanently. We never really had a chance to beat the NVA and VC while we used the strategy that we did.
Heh. Linux uses GNU applications and GNU's Not UNIX.
Strictly speaking, Linux is UNIX-like. UNIX is an actual trademark for a multiuser, multitasking system which currently exists as UNIX System V Revision 4. There are three OS's today that are actually True UNIX: AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris.
They needed to upgrade it years ago. That's from a simple parts availability/maintenance standpoint. Yes, it works. That's not the point. Eventually the people who actually know how this works will retire or die. That would be okay if they were planning on replacing it. It doesn't sound like they are. Luckily, this doesn't feel like a mission critical system, but it's still dumb that this has been allowed to go that far.
If the journal has a policy about software licensing, they need to follow it. It's not about this jackass, it's about remaining consistent, and presumably this policy should exist for pragmatic or ethical reasons that have nothing to do with the reasoning behind the licensing change.
Although someone has asked whether the policy would be enforced if this guy was upset about immigrants *not* being let into countries. Or whatever the more popular policy position is, at the time.
Would they retract if he refused to allow countries to use his software if they didn't accept AGW, for instance?
He believes that cheap labor is simply allowing capitalism to continue down the same path of exploitation of labor and not have to accept that they should pay a higher wage. This in turn keeps the population compliant and impoverished.
By keeping immigrants out, you maintain a smaller pool of workers you must use for everything, and this can induce a shortage of labor which makes strikes more viable, and forces competition for the remaining laborers. Eventually, the workers have enough power to force changes which make their lives more comfortable, and then the workers gain control of the means of production and history ends in a worker's paradise.
For all I know, such a policy may well cause the fall of capitalism in Germany, but unless the rest of the world is at about the same place, Germany is going to be precariously balanced behind it's protectionist walls. Eventually powerful insiders in Germany will get enough power to knock holes in those protections just for themselves, and then everyone else will cry foul, and it will all fall apart. That's how it usually goes, anyway.
However, aside from the "genetic or cultural" things he's talking about, his argument is a valid policy position that you could make against any immigrant population. Of course, you can certainly argue that it is not best policy position possible.
Well, he's suggesting that it alters how the government spends money, which he presumably pays in taxes. Also, his family could be in some other way impacted by immigration.
To be honest, he could be xenophobic and racist. Or perhaps he is just fine with people from those places as long as they don't impact him in a manner he considers dangerous to him.
Let's look at H1-Bs. There's nothing particularly wrong with Indians. They generally share the same spectrum of smart/dumb, nice/asshole that every other population has. However, using H1-B visas to bring them in, in an attempt to depress wages, may well impact someone in the US adversely. That person might have a right to complain and dislike the policy that allows this, without particularly disliking the actual people who are being used by that policy.
To be fair, these sorts of objections often start targeting the beneficiaries of the policies, and at that point, it starts sounding racist or xenophobic.
So, a political candidate who does not like the current immigration policies or enforcement because it harms his constituency, is not xenophobic.
On the other hand, suggesting that they are all rapists or doing things that they are demonstrably NOT doing starts to move into the territory of xenophobia.
I doubt that many of them bother. Voting is for plebes, the real ballots have dead presidents on them and you don't have to wait until Election Day to cast them.
2)(A) Except with respect to meetings closed in accordance with this rule, each committee and subcommittee shall make publicly available through the internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any meeting not later than 21 business days after the meeting occurs.
If you look at the Congressional Record, you see where it says they they went into Closed Session at such time, and no information about what happened in that session.
Speaking as someone who has European data in the US, we simply cannot afford to hire more Operations staff in the EU to look at EU data. A lot of businesses are in the same boat.
You might suggest that some local EU business might therefore eat our lunch, but honestly I don't know any company in the EU that does what we do.
They'll resolve it because it is a serious impediment to business and a lot of businesses also don't want to up and switch providers or force their providers to have to open EU subsidiaries.
Anyway, this isn't actually my opinion, this is the legal advice we have received about the situation. EU member governments are sitting on this because *everyone* is non-compliant and no one wants to prosecute *everyone*. Negotiations are in full gear to get this resolved as soon as possible. I can't say that every member state will be on-board in six months, but don't expect much to change between now and then. In the meantime, we're writing amendments to our contracts for each member state, which is the approach the big players are taking.
Mind you, I don't mind operating servers in the EU, but hiring EU personnel is a deal breaker because actually running our operations doesn't take very many people. I'd have to double my team just to have people in the EU duplicating the effort that we do just fine with our small team here. We'd simply withdraw our product from EU states first.
Unfortunately, I don't know that they provide this information in a specific field in the NVD. I mostly get remediation information from our scanner reports or by reading the actual responses/bulletins.
I know that the CVSS v3 specification has a Remediation Level field, but that hasn't been rolled out yet.
It is good that Apple seems to be cleaning up vulnerabilities, although it should be noted that fixing the problems only takes effect if the users are running a version of the software that is patched with the fixes. Apple, I am sure, does its best to ensure updates are installed, but providing a fix does not actually clean the system unless used.
It's a third party site, so you want to backcheck what information it provides, but it should give you data about any product you like. Apple has 102 products listed there, which includes iOS and OSX, but also things like Bonjour and applications its provides.
Safe Harbor will be resolved in six months and we'll be back to where it was, with maybe a few changes.
This is probably just something they were going to do anyway, and decided it was a good time to make a big deal out of it for PR purposes. Many customers wanted their stuff in the EU even before the Safe Harbor debacle.
Why do you think $120k is NOT a huge expense, at least relatively? The cost of running all of our servers in production, development and demo is less than the amount of money spent per year on my team, even forgetting about their benefits.
Of course, if you're using Sun equipment, and possibly things like Oracle, I guess I'm starting to understand. I'm very sorry you have to deal with that. I used to work at places like that.
I was quoted $150,000 for a license of Oracle once. I nearly laughed myself to death. I went to the CEO and said, "well you can buy this, which isn't even much more than Oracle Standard and some crap replication, or you could just use MySQL for free, not hire six DBAs and get about the same level of shittiness and lack of support."
Note I never said MySQL was good, I just said that Oracle isn't better unless you pay them two million dollars. And then pay them two million more when they do an audit and find out your people have been using "unlicensed" features like AWR reporting which they just sort of let you do and then trick you into admitting that you use later.
Sun hardware was pretty decent when I was using it, but overpriced and overengineered for the things it was actually used for. I did enjoy talking to the SSE's when they came in to change some memory or a CPU module, though.
The kernel in Apple iOS before 9.1 and OS X before 10.11.1 does not initialize an unspecified data structure, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors involving an unknown network-connectivity requirement.
That's just the highest score. I'm not sure why you think OS X does not have any scores above 2. There are large numbers of CVEs above 2.
The problem is that you believe it is a conspiracy. It is nothing of the sort. It is a mechanism that is off the rails, and everyone is going along for the ride. Some people get insanely rich off of it, the rest get run over.
However, don't think for a minute that this is a plan. There is no plan, only short term gain and stupid investors.
There are vast inequalities of opportunity in the world, and those can be used to the advantage of those who are willing to break down those barriers. The hope is that eventually, a fully globalized market will stabilize salaries and the ability to hire cheap Indians or Vietnamese will no longer exist, but it's going to hurt all the way down.
People believe that the free market is a choice. It's not. Market forces are a system that operates outside of any policy decision, and it will ensure that it gets what it wants, which is an equilibrium. As communication and the ability to trade all over the world increases, the barriers that were used to maintain protectionism become more and more artificial and rickety. This is the result. It may be that the only way that we protect ourselves is to ensure that those across the sea are successful and our partners, driving up their standard of living to a point where they have more in common with us.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to what you believe, religion does not provide any of these things. A trouble-free childhood with caring parents and a continuing lack of existential worries can do miracles, though.
Because you say so, I guess.
Yes, caring parents and lack of worries is very positive, but there were presumably caring parents and carefree individuals before anyone invented religion as well.
Religious belief has a purpose, that much is clear. Whether it is possible to replace it now with something else remains to be seen.
You may or may not be right about it being a delusion, but I doubt the world will be any better than before. People will just change the excuses for doing these things.
We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.
You should not use one data point to compare the effectiveness of different countries' law enforcement especially when discussing different situations.
Terrorists are going to succeed eventually as long as they are capable and motivated to keep trying. The question is whether those laws have cut down the rate of successful attempts and arrests are only one of many variables in that calculation.
They were that by background, not conviction. It may have informed the flavor of their Marxism, just like if I became a Marxist and decided that I really liked Easter, I might reform Easter into a worker's spring festival where you could hunt for hidden eggs (all red of course) and have some solemn processions of workers and soldiers. But if I persecute my ethnic religion, ignore its core rules, and visibly espouse atheism and Marxism, I'm no longer a Christian and using that label on me is mere background color only of interest to biographers.
Yes, they did abolish religions as threats, but the abolition of religion was also a central facet of the Marxist program. Marxism required the end of religion to come about.
That is merely a turn of phrase. It is important to understand that someone like Hitler did not elevate religion to something where using the world 'god' would imply that he was acting in behalf of some deity. Everything he said or did was subordinated to and used to support his own power and his principle of Germanic superiority. He was the ubermensch, conventional morality did not apply to him in the pursuit of what he determined to be the furthering of his own values.
If I was someone who was functionally an atheist, and I knew that you'd applaud me for simply using a conventional phrase that happened to refer to 'god', why would you ever think I would avoid using that phrase?
He didn't even have to pretend to be a theist. All he had to do is simply use common turns of phrase and let the people listening to him come to their own conclusions. I'm certain that even convinced atheists have said 'god damnit' on occasion, despite their complete disbelief in a deity or an afterlife in which one could be damned.
Hitler was almost certainly an atheist or at least an agnostic in practice, labeling him a Catholic would be like labeling Trotsky as a Jew. Both true, but only in the barest sense of ethnic background.
Hitler really seems to have had no sincere beliefs in regard to religion for himself, he merely attempted to determine if a particular religion could be co-opted or if it had to be destroyed. While that doesn't make him an atheist necessarily, he just didn't think theology was important at all.
Ethnically, Hitler was a Catholic but considering his complete antipathy to the actual beliefs of that Church, makes him about as much a Roman Catholic as my Marxist Poli Sci professors were.
He had a belief in a Teutonic ethnic and "genetic" superiority, but frankly, this philosophy never reached the level of a consistent theology or even really discussed any authority which made Germans the Master Race. They were merely the Master Race, self-evidently.
In any event, a Hitler could just as easily exist in an atheistic world view as a religious one. He was a master manipulator of divisions and friction to make himself a third option.
I personally imagine that he probably thought that he would be a 'god' in the same sense that Roman emperors were: deified and bound to be celebrated by his victorious civilization as a paragon of a state cult or religion after he died. Thereafter part of ceremonies to inspire awe among future generations to maintain the state and the state philosophy.
Not that I am necessarily supporting the preceding sentiment, but in Vietnam, we spent our time avoiding the targets that we really should have had as objectives, like ground attack on Hanoi and various ports like Haiphong. We played defense all the time when the reality of the scenario is that we needed to invade North Vietnam, depose their leadership and then enforce a graduated transition to actual democracy after a period of occupation, education, and rebuilding.
Mind you, as we have seen with Iraq, successful occupation and rebuilding is also not a given, but it is a necessary step in concluding the threat more or less permanently. We never really had a chance to beat the NVA and VC while we used the strategy that we did.
Heh. Linux uses GNU applications and GNU's Not UNIX.
Strictly speaking, Linux is UNIX-like. UNIX is an actual trademark for a multiuser, multitasking system which currently exists as UNIX System V Revision 4. There are three OS's today that are actually True UNIX: AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris.
They needed to upgrade it years ago. That's from a simple parts availability/maintenance standpoint. Yes, it works. That's not the point. Eventually the people who actually know how this works will retire or die. That would be okay if they were planning on replacing it. It doesn't sound like they are. Luckily, this doesn't feel like a mission critical system, but it's still dumb that this has been allowed to go that far.
That's because when you turn 27, you are required to turn in all your gaming PCs, consoles and other gaming accessories and report to the carousel.
True. And the history books got his title wrong. Mr. Franklin was America's first Pimpmaster General. He even showed the French how it was done.
If the journal has a policy about software licensing, they need to follow it. It's not about this jackass, it's about remaining consistent, and presumably this policy should exist for pragmatic or ethical reasons that have nothing to do with the reasoning behind the licensing change.
Although someone has asked whether the policy would be enforced if this guy was upset about immigrants *not* being let into countries. Or whatever the more popular policy position is, at the time.
Would they retract if he refused to allow countries to use his software if they didn't accept AGW, for instance?
I am outraged that you think I could possibly even think of being outraged.
He believes that cheap labor is simply allowing capitalism to continue down the same path of exploitation of labor and not have to accept that they should pay a higher wage. This in turn keeps the population compliant and impoverished.
By keeping immigrants out, you maintain a smaller pool of workers you must use for everything, and this can induce a shortage of labor which makes strikes more viable, and forces competition for the remaining laborers. Eventually, the workers have enough power to force changes which make their lives more comfortable, and then the workers gain control of the means of production and history ends in a worker's paradise.
For all I know, such a policy may well cause the fall of capitalism in Germany, but unless the rest of the world is at about the same place, Germany is going to be precariously balanced behind it's protectionist walls. Eventually powerful insiders in Germany will get enough power to knock holes in those protections just for themselves, and then everyone else will cry foul, and it will all fall apart. That's how it usually goes, anyway.
However, aside from the "genetic or cultural" things he's talking about, his argument is a valid policy position that you could make against any immigrant population. Of course, you can certainly argue that it is not best policy position possible.
Well, he's suggesting that it alters how the government spends money, which he presumably pays in taxes. Also, his family could be in some other way impacted by immigration.
To be honest, he could be xenophobic and racist. Or perhaps he is just fine with people from those places as long as they don't impact him in a manner he considers dangerous to him.
Let's look at H1-Bs. There's nothing particularly wrong with Indians. They generally share the same spectrum of smart/dumb, nice/asshole that every other population has. However, using H1-B visas to bring them in, in an attempt to depress wages, may well impact someone in the US adversely. That person might have a right to complain and dislike the policy that allows this, without particularly disliking the actual people who are being used by that policy.
To be fair, these sorts of objections often start targeting the beneficiaries of the policies, and at that point, it starts sounding racist or xenophobic.
So, a political candidate who does not like the current immigration policies or enforcement because it harms his constituency, is not xenophobic.
On the other hand, suggesting that they are all rapists or doing things that they are demonstrably NOT doing starts to move into the territory of xenophobia.
Strictly speaking, most of that is legal. What isn't legal is the part where the US government uses your services for anything.
I doubt that many of them bother. Voting is for plebes, the real ballots have dead presidents on them and you don't have to wait until Election Day to cast them.
Both houses of Congress and much more often their committees can move into closed sessions which do not have their minutes published publicly.
http://www.rules.senate.gov/pu...
2)(A) Except with respect to meetings closed in accordance with this rule, each committee and subcommittee shall make publicly available through the internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any meeting not later than 21 business days after the meeting occurs.
If you look at the Congressional Record, you see where it says they they went into Closed Session at such time, and no information about what happened in that session.
Speaking as someone who has European data in the US, we simply cannot afford to hire more Operations staff in the EU to look at EU data. A lot of businesses are in the same boat.
You might suggest that some local EU business might therefore eat our lunch, but honestly I don't know any company in the EU that does what we do.
They'll resolve it because it is a serious impediment to business and a lot of businesses also don't want to up and switch providers or force their providers to have to open EU subsidiaries.
Anyway, this isn't actually my opinion, this is the legal advice we have received about the situation. EU member governments are sitting on this because *everyone* is non-compliant and no one wants to prosecute *everyone*. Negotiations are in full gear to get this resolved as soon as possible. I can't say that every member state will be on-board in six months, but don't expect much to change between now and then. In the meantime, we're writing amendments to our contracts for each member state, which is the approach the big players are taking.
Mind you, I don't mind operating servers in the EU, but hiring EU personnel is a deal breaker because actually running our operations doesn't take very many people. I'd have to double my team just to have people in the EU duplicating the effort that we do just fine with our small team here. We'd simply withdraw our product from EU states first.
Unfortunately, I don't know that they provide this information in a specific field in the NVD. I mostly get remediation information from our scanner reports or by reading the actual responses/bulletins.
I know that the CVSS v3 specification has a Remediation Level field, but that hasn't been rolled out yet.
It is good that Apple seems to be cleaning up vulnerabilities, although it should be noted that fixing the problems only takes effect if the users are running a version of the software that is patched with the fixes. Apple, I am sure, does its best to ensure updates are installed, but providing a fix does not actually clean the system unless used.
If you want to see pretty graphs and a bit easier read, you can look at: http://www.cvedetails.com/prod...
It's a third party site, so you want to backcheck what information it provides, but it should give you data about any product you like. Apple has 102 products listed there, which includes iOS and OSX, but also things like Bonjour and applications its provides.
Safe Harbor will be resolved in six months and we'll be back to where it was, with maybe a few changes.
This is probably just something they were going to do anyway, and decided it was a good time to make a big deal out of it for PR purposes. Many customers wanted their stuff in the EU even before the Safe Harbor debacle.
Why do you think $120k is NOT a huge expense, at least relatively? The cost of running all of our servers in production, development and demo is less than the amount of money spent per year on my team, even forgetting about their benefits.
Of course, if you're using Sun equipment, and possibly things like Oracle, I guess I'm starting to understand. I'm very sorry you have to deal with that. I used to work at places like that.
I was quoted $150,000 for a license of Oracle once. I nearly laughed myself to death. I went to the CEO and said, "well you can buy this, which isn't even much more than Oracle Standard and some crap replication, or you could just use MySQL for free, not hire six DBAs and get about the same level of shittiness and lack of support."
Note I never said MySQL was good, I just said that Oracle isn't better unless you pay them two million dollars. And then pay them two million more when they do an audit and find out your people have been using "unlicensed" features like AWR reporting which they just sort of let you do and then trick you into admitting that you use later.
Sun hardware was pretty decent when I was using it, but overpriced and overengineered for the things it was actually used for. I did enjoy talking to the SSE's when they came in to change some memory or a CPU module, though.
Management consultants... *sigh*
I wonder how you get that gig? Seems like free money for running your mouth.
CVE-2015-6988 - CVSS score 10.0
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/...
The kernel in Apple iOS before 9.1 and OS X before 10.11.1 does not initialize an unspecified data structure, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors involving an unknown network-connectivity requirement.
That's just the highest score. I'm not sure why you think OS X does not have any scores above 2. There are large numbers of CVEs above 2.
The problem is that you believe it is a conspiracy. It is nothing of the sort. It is a mechanism that is off the rails, and everyone is going along for the ride. Some people get insanely rich off of it, the rest get run over.
However, don't think for a minute that this is a plan. There is no plan, only short term gain and stupid investors.
There are vast inequalities of opportunity in the world, and those can be used to the advantage of those who are willing to break down those barriers. The hope is that eventually, a fully globalized market will stabilize salaries and the ability to hire cheap Indians or Vietnamese will no longer exist, but it's going to hurt all the way down.
People believe that the free market is a choice. It's not. Market forces are a system that operates outside of any policy decision, and it will ensure that it gets what it wants, which is an equilibrium. As communication and the ability to trade all over the world increases, the barriers that were used to maintain protectionism become more and more artificial and rickety. This is the result. It may be that the only way that we protect ourselves is to ensure that those across the sea are successful and our partners, driving up their standard of living to a point where they have more in common with us.