Here is a radical idea, how about don't vote? I originally posted this in various posts on RevLeft (my "homepage"), and in that context. However, most of the messages in here count for everyone. In short: your vote doesn't count, and when you vote you are telling "the system" that you support the person and everything they stand for.
------ Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.
OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue. Even if you didn't mean to (the USA presidential system democratic? Not even the term "representative democracy" makes sense in this case).
OK, so don't vote, and the politicians say, people are happy with the status quo. However, we all know that is bullshit, especially in this case where the present president cannot be re-elected. The reasoning behind the claim is totally flawed. To not vote, does not endorse the status quo, because the status quo is changing! OK, what about not voting as "accepting the system"? Yeah, if you vote you are endorsing the system and whomever gets elected, and by not voting the same... Actually, only the first is the case. Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).
OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then [i]voting[/i] for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.
But when since is voting fun? Especially when it means that (whether your vote is counted or not, and we all know how many votes aren't counted, whether because you are black or from a Democratic county, or because you foolishly used (or didn't have a choice in using) Diabold machines (regularly giving votes to Republicans and losing Democratic votes, every time) endorsing (tacitly and implicitly, even if not explicitly) a system that you are fundamentally against.
So yeah, if you are against the present system of exploitation etc., then use bullets, the ballots aren't going to change the system.
-----
The lesser of two evils is... evil.
If you are going to vote for evil, vote for Cthulhu, the greater evil.
-----
The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.
[About Nader] Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.
However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.
However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.
The current US Presidential electoral process produces a weak mandate
It is accepted in the US by many political theorists that if a person does not vote, then they are happy with either the status quo or with whoever got elected. Generally from minorities, many people do not vote because th
To me, C is basically a subset of C++ (and I am well aware that C came first, and that it is exactly a subset).
That is, if I can program in C, I can do C++ as well, and if I can do C++, I can use many of the techniques when programming C.
Of course, I can't program either C or C++ (Java and PHP are the closest I've got).
So, your original comment the "Python interpreter and most JVMs are written in C++" is correct, if you understand C as being a subset of C++. But actually, you are wrong when it comes down the nitty gritty. And you should have said C originally, if you knew that was what Python was actually written in.
My reading was that the person isn't so happy with the situation, they want to improve it some what.
Well, they've tried, they even talked to the CEO. They aren't interested.
Besides, if you are scared of getting fired, nothing will even happen. How do you think most workers rights were brought about? They weren't brought about by bowed heads, there were strikes, and sabotage, and police shooting protesters.
So, don't be scared, step up to the plate and swing the bat.
(Another option that didn't occur to me just now, skip the CEO, go the shareholders. Or alternatively the board. Publicly traded company.)
Nah seriously, do you even have a proper IT person/team? Do you have an effective back up system in place?
Maybe you could (after making sure that the back ups can be restored in the event of disaster), trash all the source for the software (making sure that it can't be associated with you of course). When the bosses notice that the entire company is going to go under because this "software" that they don't know anything about is gone, restore the back up and make the case again...
Another option is to have the entire crew refuse to write any more software (go on strike), especially if it isn't detailed in your contract as a duty. You may even get a pay rise out of it.
So yeah, there are three options (leave, strike and sabotage). Try one, then the other, and finally the third (not in the order I present them in of course). As always, keep your CV up to date and have decent savings.
This is a great point, and it is a pity it is being modded "funny" rather then insightful.
Even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government, and thus they can collect what they will on you, they will loose that information.
And you don't want scammers, fraudsters, identity miss-users and other people to get hold of that information.
So even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government (the people whom you should trust the least (next to corporations) out of society), you certainly wouldn't be handing over this information to your friendly neighbourhood Mafia.
The least significant bit of each pixel. Oh, and now it appears that this tool doesn't work. (At least, I would suggest it isn't that good, I could be wrong. The article appears to suggest that it is that good, if you can take a photo on your phone of a painting, and then find an article on that painting...)
Oh well, I guess people still haven't learnt that the old ways of copyright are only hanging on through inertia.
Oh, and queue the predictable (and correct) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images. To steal a photo or a picture, you would have to take a physical copy belonging to someone, and deprive someone else of that physical copy, without their permission. (And the word "steal" doesn't appear to appear in the article, added to provoke page views I guess.)
Well, yes, they can't *legally* force you to delete the photo (in a vaguely civilised place at least), I don't think even cops can do that. However, they can threaten you (cops can do it legally).
Cops can arrest you, and make your life a misery (just for pissing them off, been there done that, got the flight stubs), and while you maybe able to sue a security guard who beats the shit out of you, again, it maybe safer just to delete the photo.
(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)
Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)
However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.
Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.
By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...
The article concludes that you should try it out, but why bother? It sounds shit, and I don't have the time to fuck around with a shitty distro focused on Google crap that I don't even use.
It sounds half put together (take the dock, which just relaunches programs rather then displays already running programs), the problems with Compiz, and to quote the article:
In summing-up on a practical level, Iâ(TM)d say that if gOS has a fault itâ(TM)s that itâ(TM)s a little rough-and-ready. It feels clumsy. Some of this might be down to the beta status of the release I looked at, but I donâ(TM)t think that explains all of it. Thereâ(TM)s a feeling of disparate things being thrown together (a disease that has blighted many up-and-coming Linux distros).
Basically, for anyone who is even a little bit knowledgeable about Ubuntu, they could put together something like this themselves (apt-get install is such a cliche, but you know why it is? because it is true), and it would be tailored to them.
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
But more to the point, you have got something to hide, everybody does. Who hasn't broken the law at one stage or another? Speeding? Jaywalked? Partaken of some illicit substance? Blasphemed? (You know why Mary was a virgin? She only had anal sex.) You get the idea, everyone is guilty of something, and that means everyone has something to hide from the government.
Remember folks, even if you aren't in the UK, this still affects you! If you communicate with people in the UK, if you have email based in the UK (I have a Yahoo.co.uk email address, in addition to my 50 other email addresses...), etc....
It is as simple as installing Firefox, installing GNUPG, and installing that extension that lets you encrypt text fields when you are emailing...
And don't forget TrueCrypt http://truecrypt.org/ though it isn't strictly relevant in this case, it is always relevant.
So good (I assume) sir, how do you make decisions to avoid walls? Could it be... electro-chemical signals go from your eyes to other parts of the brain, which then send signals to your muscles to avoid the wall? No actual intelligence going on at all is there...
EULAs tend to restrict your rights, to less then what is available under copyright law. (E.g. many of them would say that you aren't allowed to make back-up copies, or to reverse engineer the software, both of which are allowed (at least) under Australian copyright law (I believe).)
However, free software licences enhance what you are allowed to do. Enabling, for example, you to re-use software in your own work.
However, these licences tend to say that you have to follow certain conditions if you wish to have this extra freedom. The most common being attribution.
In the case mentioned, one actor (company or person, whichever), took code from another actor's project and used it without permission in a manner which wasn't permitted by the licence for that code.
If there was no licence for the code, then that would be a strict copyright violation. There was a licence, and reuse was allowed, under certain conditions. However, because these weren't followed, bang copyright violation (as if there wasn't a licence at all).
Let's sort a couple of my principles into some semblance of hierarchy shall we?
Independence of the individual, autonomy for the individual, freedom for the individual. That trumps all the rest.
So in the case of the slave holding south, well they shouldn't hold slaves.
However, I also think that self-determination is an extension of this principle, people have the right to choose what (if any) government they live under (I would choose none, but it seems I don't actually get a say).
So yeah, the north were a pack of imperialist bastards invading the south against the express wishes of the people in the south. (Actually I don't know my US Civil War history that well, I don't know if the people generally actually wanted independence, or if it was merely some few rich plantation and slave owners.)
So to repeat, in the case you mention, the invasion of the south by the north was a bad thing, however, I hate slavery.
I don't believe you, or the author of the WSWS article really know what is going on. Heck, I know I don't. I don't that most *news* folks know what is going on.
I don't trust the BBC or CNN ("Communist News Network", even if they are right-wing to the core) to provide impartial accurate coverage, and they claim to be impartial and independent.
So why am I going to trust someone with an explicit barrow to push? (Even if it is a barrow that I could get on board and travel with, at least some of the way.)
I'm afraid the only thing that anyone who is not on the ground (and even then you have major problems with knowing what is going on) can do is to weigh it all up, and in the end condemn all sides.
The Georgians should support the staging of an independent binding plebiscite on independence in those regions where people have expressed a desire for it. The Russians should fuck off back home and respect the outcome of such a plebiscite. The USA and the EU should shut the fuck up about territorial integrity (it only suites them to talk about it when they want to, i.e. not when the country is Serbia or Germany post WW1) and fuck off too.
You aren't the only want to make the same mistake, but you actually quoted the entire bloody post!
Hint, I'm not a state socialist, I don't want any government at all. I'm an anarchist.
Sweden, they aren't even/state/ socialist, they are capitalist with a large chunk of regulation. They do actually have nice (comparatively) social security, but it isn't socialism. (And they have a nasty attitude towards drugs, I don't need another parent thanks.)
Yeah, and this isn't just addressed to you, but also to all the other folks above who made the same stupid mistake. I'm not a state socialist, nor a communist (of either the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc. sort (which aren't communist at all), or the anti-state, class-less sort), I'm an adjective free anarchist. (Anarchist without adjectives.)
Or you could do a search for disabling passport RFID or something like that. (What I got out briefly reading those discussions is either a magnet (CRT computer monitor or TV I guess would be easiest), or else a hammer.
I've already seen a "joke" about cultists (it was crap, I'm expecting better), any more?
But yeah, a random comment, capitalism sucks.
Seriously, people often don't have a real choice (the freedom to starve...) when it comes to signing contracts, especially in countries (such as the USA) where significant workers rights aren't enshrined in law.
In this case, it appears that the workers signed contracts which said that they wouldn't get paid an hourly rate, which means that they don't get overtime. Which means (at least in this case), that they can get over worked for nothing.
And that is a problem (I've heard it is a very big problem in Japan generally).
Basically (and I'm taking off my anarchist hat for a minute), workers rights do require regulation in a capitalist economy, otherwise they get screwed.
Honestly, what attitude problem are you talking about?
Swearing is never a problem and never indicates anything except that the person swears.
Being "hell-bent" doesn't mean that he is going to overrule or ignore the engineers. Heck, with that attitude it would make sense to listen to the engineers. Because they are the actual ones who are going to have to do the work.
So yeah, the only "attitude problem" I can see is the same that any CEO has, "my workers will do X". What army gave them the right to boss anyone else around? (Oh right, in this case the USA army; capitalism, requiring government since it was started.)
(I've seen mixed results with the following sorts of quotes, but what the fuck: "I know I'll get modded down for this post, but..." and "I've got karma to burn". Seriously, what's the point of having an opinion if you are too scared to post it?)
And how the fuck are you going to prevent them? Hide your computers and just let them access the screen, keyboard and mouse?
Unless you put your lab machines in a safe, there is always a way to access the network cables. (Even if it involves pulling the cover away from where they go into the wall.)
My own computer much? Prevents keylogging. (Not to mention, software keylogging is prevented on lab machines by locking them down and drawing the image down the network when you login. So even if you install keylogging software, if it works at all, it would only work for your login. Hardware keyloggers are expensive/hard to get.)
Brute-forced... Joking much? The password file is stored at the other end of the network, you can't just grab it. And good luck tapping in different passwords by hand, with an enforced three second delay.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes you just have to throw out the mess of crap and start again. I believe you yanks have done it once, now do it again.
Remove the entire corrupt system and replace it with something that *can't* corrupt. Or at least design it from ground up to be secure...
Here is a radical idea, how about don't vote? I originally posted this in various posts on RevLeft (my "homepage"), and in that context. However, most of the messages in here count for everyone. In short: your vote doesn't count, and when you vote you are telling "the system" that you support the person and everything they stand for.
------
Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.
OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue. Even if you didn't mean to (the USA presidential system democratic? Not even the term "representative democracy" makes sense in this case).
OK, so don't vote, and the politicians say, people are happy with the status quo. However, we all know that is bullshit, especially in this case where the present president cannot be re-elected. The reasoning behind the claim is totally flawed. To not vote, does not endorse the status quo, because the status quo is changing! OK, what about not voting as "accepting the system"? Yeah, if you vote you are endorsing the system and whomever gets elected, and by not voting the same... Actually, only the first is the case. Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).
OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then [i]voting[/i] for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.
But when since is voting fun? Especially when it means that (whether your vote is counted or not, and we all know how many votes aren't counted, whether because you are black or from a Democratic county, or because you foolishly used (or didn't have a choice in using) Diabold machines (regularly giving votes to Republicans and losing Democratic votes, every time) endorsing (tacitly and implicitly, even if not explicitly) a system that you are fundamentally against.
So yeah, if you are against the present system of exploitation etc., then use bullets, the ballots aren't going to change the system.
-----
The lesser of two evils is... evil.
If you are going to vote for evil, vote for Cthulhu, the greater evil.
-----
The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.
[About Nader] Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.
-----
From an old essay of mine http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html
I meant to say "not exactly", damn brain running ahead of myself again...
It makes more sense if you automatically insert the "not" that I inadvertently missed.
(I seem to be doing it quite often as well, forgetting my negatives...)
To me, C is basically a subset of C++ (and I am well aware that C came first, and that it is exactly a subset).
That is, if I can program in C, I can do C++ as well, and if I can do C++, I can use many of the techniques when programming C.
Of course, I can't program either C or C++ (Java and PHP are the closest I've got).
So, your original comment the "Python interpreter and most JVMs are written in C++" is correct, if you understand C as being a subset of C++. But actually, you are wrong when it comes down the nitty gritty. And you should have said C originally, if you knew that was what Python was actually written in.
That's called sabotage, and if you are going to do this, make sure it can't be traced back to anyone, let alone you.
And because that is hard, maybe try my idea of trashing back ups (above), it's easier to hide your tracks...
My reading was that the person isn't so happy with the situation, they want to improve it some what.
Well, they've tried, they even talked to the CEO. They aren't interested.
Besides, if you are scared of getting fired, nothing will even happen. How do you think most workers rights were brought about? They weren't brought about by bowed heads, there were strikes, and sabotage, and police shooting protesters.
So, don't be scared, step up to the plate and swing the bat.
(Another option that didn't occur to me just now, skip the CEO, go the shareholders. Or alternatively the board. Publicly traded company.)
Nah seriously, do you even have a proper IT person/team? Do you have an effective back up system in place?
Maybe you could (after making sure that the back ups can be restored in the event of disaster), trash all the source for the software (making sure that it can't be associated with you of course). When the bosses notice that the entire company is going to go under because this "software" that they don't know anything about is gone, restore the back up and make the case again...
Another option is to have the entire crew refuse to write any more software (go on strike), especially if it isn't detailed in your contract as a duty. You may even get a pay rise out of it.
So yeah, there are three options (leave, strike and sabotage). Try one, then the other, and finally the third (not in the order I present them in of course). As always, keep your CV up to date and have decent savings.
This is a great point, and it is a pity it is being modded "funny" rather then insightful.
Even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government, and thus they can collect what they will on you, they will loose that information.
And you don't want scammers, fraudsters, identity miss-users and other people to get hold of that information.
So even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government (the people whom you should trust the least (next to corporations) out of society), you certainly wouldn't be handing over this information to your friendly neighbourhood Mafia.
(Oh, and you certainly do have something to hide from the government. Even if it is the fact that you sometimes speed or jaywalk.
In this comment I made the point about nothing to hide, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=645245&cid=24591399 and linked to this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 paper. Read it.)
Deniable OS is different to deniable partition on a standard OS running software such as MS Word or whatever.
Basically, the hidden OS is deniable, and anything you do in it is too. I suggest you actually read the stuff that has been linked to.
The least significant bit of each pixel. Oh, and now it appears that this tool doesn't work. (At least, I would suggest it isn't that good, I could be wrong. The article appears to suggest that it is that good, if you can take a photo on your phone of a painting, and then find an article on that painting...)
Oh well, I guess people still haven't learnt that the old ways of copyright are only hanging on through inertia.
Oh, and queue the predictable (and correct) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images. To steal a photo or a picture, you would have to take a physical copy belonging to someone, and deprive someone else of that physical copy, without their permission. (And the word "steal" doesn't appear to appear in the article, added to provoke page views I guess.)
Well, yes, they can't *legally* force you to delete the photo (in a vaguely civilised place at least), I don't think even cops can do that. However, they can threaten you (cops can do it legally).
Cops can arrest you, and make your life a misery (just for pissing them off, been there done that, got the flight stubs), and while you maybe able to sue a security guard who beats the shit out of you, again, it maybe safer just to delete the photo.
(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)
Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)
However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.
Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.
By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...
For comments around public photography and laws around photography in the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=56
For the USA:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.photosecrets.com/law.html
Lots of links for different countries:
http://www.photolawnews.com/
There are also guides for Australia I believe, and other countries.
The article concludes that you should try it out, but why bother? It sounds shit, and I don't have the time to fuck around with a shitty distro focused on Google crap that I don't even use.
It sounds half put together (take the dock, which just relaunches programs rather then displays already running programs), the problems with Compiz, and to quote the article:
Basically, for anyone who is even a little bit knowledgeable about Ubuntu, they could put together something like this themselves (apt-get install is such a cliche, but you know why it is? because it is true), and it would be tailored to them.
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
So you don't mind me watching you have sex (wait an anonymous coward posting shit on Slashdot, you don't have sex)? Masturbate? Bathe? Shit?
How about we set you up in a glass cage for a week in the middle of (say) Times Square?
Or, how about you read this article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 linked to by another Slashdotter at one time. You have to register to download it, but a fake email address works just as well.
But more to the point, you have got something to hide, everybody does. Who hasn't broken the law at one stage or another? Speeding? Jaywalked? Partaken of some illicit substance? Blasphemed? (You know why Mary was a virgin? She only had anal sex.) You get the idea, everyone is guilty of something, and that means everyone has something to hide from the government.
http://www.gnupg.org/ - The GNU Privacy Guard
http://getfiregpg.org/ - FireGPG, "encrypt, decrypt, sign or verify the signature of text in any web page using GnuPG" (untested by me).
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3424 - another Firefox extension, also untested.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3208 - another one that may be useful (untested).
http://www.gpg4win.org/ - something for MS Windows
Remember folks, even if you aren't in the UK, this still affects you! If you communicate with people in the UK, if you have email based in the UK (I have a Yahoo.co.uk email address, in addition to my 50 other email addresses...), etc. ...
It is as simple as installing Firefox, installing GNUPG, and installing that extension that lets you encrypt text fields when you are emailing...
And don't forget TrueCrypt http://truecrypt.org/ though it isn't strictly relevant in this case, it is always relevant.
So good (I assume) sir, how do you make decisions to avoid walls? Could it be... electro-chemical signals go from your eyes to other parts of the brain, which then send signals to your muscles to avoid the wall? No actual intelligence going on at all is there...
EULAs tend to restrict your rights, to less then what is available under copyright law. (E.g. many of them would say that you aren't allowed to make back-up copies, or to reverse engineer the software, both of which are allowed (at least) under Australian copyright law (I believe).)
However, free software licences enhance what you are allowed to do. Enabling, for example, you to re-use software in your own work.
However, these licences tend to say that you have to follow certain conditions if you wish to have this extra freedom. The most common being attribution.
In the case mentioned, one actor (company or person, whichever), took code from another actor's project and used it without permission in a manner which wasn't permitted by the licence for that code.
If there was no licence for the code, then that would be a strict copyright violation. There was a licence, and reuse was allowed, under certain conditions. However, because these weren't followed, bang copyright violation (as if there wasn't a licence at all).
Insert standard disclaimer here.
Let's sort a couple of my principles into some semblance of hierarchy shall we?
Independence of the individual, autonomy for the individual, freedom for the individual. That trumps all the rest.
So in the case of the slave holding south, well they shouldn't hold slaves.
However, I also think that self-determination is an extension of this principle, people have the right to choose what (if any) government they live under (I would choose none, but it seems I don't actually get a say).
So yeah, the north were a pack of imperialist bastards invading the south against the express wishes of the people in the south. (Actually I don't know my US Civil War history that well, I don't know if the people generally actually wanted independence, or if it was merely some few rich plantation and slave owners.)
So to repeat, in the case you mention, the invasion of the south by the north was a bad thing, however, I hate slavery.
I don't believe you, or the author of the WSWS article really know what is going on. Heck, I know I don't. I don't that most *news* folks know what is going on.
I don't trust the BBC or CNN ("Communist News Network", even if they are right-wing to the core) to provide impartial accurate coverage, and they claim to be impartial and independent.
So why am I going to trust someone with an explicit barrow to push? (Even if it is a barrow that I could get on board and travel with, at least some of the way.)
I'm afraid the only thing that anyone who is not on the ground (and even then you have major problems with knowing what is going on) can do is to weigh it all up, and in the end condemn all sides.
The Georgians should support the staging of an independent binding plebiscite on independence in those regions where people have expressed a desire for it. The Russians should fuck off back home and respect the outcome of such a plebiscite. The USA and the EU should shut the fuck up about territorial integrity (it only suites them to talk about it when they want to, i.e. not when the country is Serbia or Germany post WW1) and fuck off too.
Does that cover everyone?
You aren't the only want to make the same mistake, but you actually quoted the entire bloody post!
Hint, I'm not a state socialist, I don't want any government at all. I'm an anarchist.
Sweden, they aren't even /state/ socialist, they are capitalist with a large chunk of regulation. They do actually have nice (comparatively) social security, but it isn't socialism. (And they have a nasty attitude towards drugs, I don't need another parent thanks.)
Yeah, and this isn't just addressed to you, but also to all the other folks above who made the same stupid mistake. I'm not a state socialist, nor a communist (of either the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc. sort (which aren't communist at all), or the anti-state, class-less sort), I'm an adjective free anarchist. (Anarchist without adjectives.)
Mine says not to leave *on top of* the microwave, or even the TV. So I do. It also says not to bend etc., I do that too.
Actually though, five seconds in the microwave should be enough to disable the chip.
There have been lots of discussions on the very point, see for example:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/renew_your_pass.html
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20832&page=2
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/how-to-disable-the-rfid-chip-in-us-passports-224321.php
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/26/how-to-disable-your-e-passports-rfid-chip/
Or you could do a search for disabling passport RFID or something like that.
(What I got out briefly reading those discussions is either a magnet (CRT computer monitor or TV I guess would be easiest), or else a hammer.
I've already seen a "joke" about cultists (it was crap, I'm expecting better), any more?
But yeah, a random comment, capitalism sucks.
Seriously, people often don't have a real choice (the freedom to starve...) when it comes to signing contracts, especially in countries (such as the USA) where significant workers rights aren't enshrined in law.
In this case, it appears that the workers signed contracts which said that they wouldn't get paid an hourly rate, which means that they don't get overtime. Which means (at least in this case), that they can get over worked for nothing.
And that is a problem (I've heard it is a very big problem in Japan generally).
Basically (and I'm taking off my anarchist hat for a minute), workers rights do require regulation in a capitalist economy, otherwise they get screwed.
Fuck off?
Honestly, what attitude problem are you talking about?
Swearing is never a problem and never indicates anything except that the person swears.
Being "hell-bent" doesn't mean that he is going to overrule or ignore the engineers. Heck, with that attitude it would make sense to listen to the engineers. Because they are the actual ones who are going to have to do the work.
So yeah, the only "attitude problem" I can see is the same that any CEO has, "my workers will do X". What army gave them the right to boss anyone else around? (Oh right, in this case the USA army; capitalism, requiring government since it was started.)
(I've seen mixed results with the following sorts of quotes, but what the fuck: "I know I'll get modded down for this post, but ..." and "I've got karma to burn". Seriously, what's the point of having an opinion if you are too scared to post it?)
And how the fuck are you going to prevent them? Hide your computers and just let them access the screen, keyboard and mouse?
Unless you put your lab machines in a safe, there is always a way to access the network cables. (Even if it involves pulling the cover away from where they go into the wall.)
Username/password is still better then MAC or IP. Yes there are problems, but as I outline below...
Encryption much? Prevents password sniffing. The protocol that my old Uni used was, I think, something based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Authentication_Protocol EAP. No more sharing a single password amongst everyone.
My own computer much? Prevents keylogging. (Not to mention, software keylogging is prevented on lab machines by locking them down and drawing the image down the network when you login. So even if you install keylogging software, if it works at all, it would only work for your login. Hardware keyloggers are expensive/hard to get.)
Brute-forced... Joking much? The password file is stored at the other end of the network, you can't just grab it. And good luck tapping in different passwords by hand, with an enforced three second delay.