Spamhaus was acting in America regardless of where their offices are. They are subject to U.S. law...
You are really stretching for that one. If I ran a web server in the U.S. (and I do, although it's off-line right now) and I post content that is illegal in somewhere else, am I subject to a foreign country's laws just because someone in that country visits my web server? For example, suppose I have a gallery of airplane pictures, and I post a picture of a German Luftwaffe airplane from WWII with a Swastika prominently displayed on it (I haven't, but it is not far-fetched to see how it could happen, since archived photos from WWII or photos of restored airplanes might have such images) . IIRC, that would technically violate French law, which I believe bans Swastikas under their "hate speech" laws. I don't live in France, and I can't realistically prevent people in France from visiting my web site. Are you seriously suggesting that I am now subject to French fines and/or jail time for this? That's absurd. For that to be a valid position to take, everyone who ever posts any content anywhere on the Web would have to be an expert in the laws of every country on earth.
How do you figure? Spamhaus (wisely, IMHO) looked at the case, decided they could spend boatloads of money fighting a frivolous lawsuit which they would *probably* -- but NOT necessarily -- win, or since they are not in the U.S.' jurisdiction, they could save themselves the worry and the stress by ignoring the lawsuit. The court that awarded the win to the spammer has no jurisdiction in the U.K. so as long as Spamhaus' CEO doesn't come to the U.S., what difference does it make to him? It's not like he's going to be extradited for this. If somebody sues me in a foreign country that I never intend to visit, the odds of me spending any money or effort to fight the lawsuit are somewhere between zero and none. Spamhaus did likewise.
...the result was they had to pay a spammer for the f**kup.
Ummm, no. The result was a judge ordered them to pay a spammer for their strategic decision. It may be subtle, but there is a difference between a judge ordering you to do something and actually having to do it. As long as you are not in the judge's jurisdiction, you don't have to do anything they order.
Broken link aside though, he asked for evidence of your faith and you gave him a link to your blog.
Yes, I did. You wanted me to post several years worth of experience on/. instead? My blog doesn't generate revenue for me. I'm not running ads on it, I'm not looking for a publisher to sign me, etc. It's a personal blog where I relate exactly what HeckRuler asked for, so I linked to it as an expediency. If you think its poor form to do that, well, don't read it, then.
By definition, faith is belief in something without evidence. Science requires the collection and examination of evidence.
No, faith is not the belief in something without evidence. It is the belief in something based upon personal experience. I love science, and I have great respect for the scientific method. I am also a person of faith, based upon my personal experience (and to a limited degree, the experience of people I trust). I do not consider the two standpoints of a love of science and my personal faith to be mutually contradictory. I do wish, however, that people on *both* sides of the faith vs. science debate would get off their high horses and accept that there is room for science and faith to coexist peacefully.
If your database is processing queries when your backup runs, yes. Ours don't, so it's not really an issue in my environment. But that *is* a good point.
Perhaps you are making this more complex than it has to be. I've had zero success simply copying the files and filesystems from a Windows server to backup and then being able to restore anything but data -- you can't reinstall a Windows OS from the moral equivalent of a Linux "cp -R" command. Linux, however, does not share this feature. You can -- and I have -- use rsync or tar to copy the entire filesystem off of a Linux machine to your backup device, then restore an entire machine -- data and OS. The only caveat is that you will need to partition the disk on the replacement machine to match the partitions on the original machine, or else you will need to modify/etc/fstab to reflect the new partitioning scheme.
So what I do is build a backup server with a huge disk array, big enough for all the data on all the machines you manage, or at least for all the machines you want to write to this backup server. Configure rsync.conf to have a/backup directory. Then on the servers you manage, have them run "rsync -av / rsync://rsyncserver.example.com/backup/rsyncclient.example.com/" (where you replace "rsyncserver.example.com" with the name or IP address of your rsync server and "rsyncclient.example.com" with the name of the client you are trying to back up).
My political affiliations are always subject to change:) If the Republicans can get back to what they originally stood for (smaller Federal government, personal freedom, etc.) I'll jump back on-board. For now, however, my political affiliations tend more towards Libertarian.
FWIW, however, I never, ever just vote the party line, either for or against. I have voted for candidates from Republican, Democratic and Libertarian camps (although I doubt I'll ever be convinced to vote for someone from the Communist Party:)
While Bush catered to big business, Obama has been essentially been playing out a hostile takeover of big business. The end result may be very, very similar to what Bush was doing (the marriage of government and big business), but there is one essential difference: in Obama's vision, he wears the pants in the relationship. That's hardly "milquetoast". It's assertive. You might be able to pin the "milquetoast" label on GWB (and I would argue that his response to 9/11 is very reminiscent of the schoolyard bully, which further supports that argument), but not Obama.
Furthermore, Obama's policies are very, very socialist -- certainly not middle-of-the road, so he's definitely not "centrist". Rather, he leans so far left, he could pick up a ruble without even bending his knees.
Call me when you finish grade school and understand politics with a little more nuance.
Pot...kettle...black? Why don't you call me back when you can do more to rebut arguments than call names?
I know that is how it has been rewritten^Winterpreted by the courts, but that is B.S. If I am not in the country, you have no right to search me because I am not in your jurisdiction. If I am in the country and therefore in your jurisdiction, then I have the rights outlined in the Constitution. Take your pick; you can't have it both ways.
"centrist, milquetoast"?!?! What are you smoking and where can I get some?
I won't argue that Bush was awful -- I've said as much for several years now, so I clearly have no love for the Facist^WRepublican party -- but calling Obama centrist and milquetoast is absurd. He seems to have every bit as much love of government control as Bush, but whereas the neo-cons are owned by big business, Obama wants to government to own big business. In either case, government and big business will be locked at the hip, to the detriment of "We the People".
Ummm, the requisite conditions, "...in the heart of unpopulated Australia..."...and "a small town in the area...", don't play well together.
That's completely ignoring the likelihood that an alien biological contaminant would be incompatible with life on earth. In other words, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Good job. Based on one post -- and reading a lot more into that post than what I ever said -- you've decided I'm a flag-waving 'Mer'can patriot. You've got a lot of insight If you actually knew anything about me at all, you'd know how incredibly stupid that position is.
Bottom line is this: I trust a pilot waaaay more than I trust silicon. There are times when an autopilot is better. They are more consistent. They don't suffer from kinesthetic illusions (look it up). They are more precise. But they are also totally devoid of insight or any spark of creative thinking. When a catastrophic failure that the engineers never envisioned occurs (and, although rare, it does occur), there is NO substitute for a human being at the controls. Having one more step to take (flicking off a switch that gives the pilots control) in an emergency is a Bad Thing. The airliner that crash landed in the Hudson had one item on the checklist that the pilots didn't get to -- in a water ditching, you have to close a valve that bleeds cockpit pressure outside. They didn't, and as a result, the airplane filled up with water and sank quicker than it would have otherwise. One switch, that's it...but they were stressed and pressed for time, and that one switch -- which isn't used very often -- was overlooked. In the same way, when the airplane suddenly does something abnormal and the pilot tries to wrest control back from the autopilot, it seems highly likely to me (and I AM a pilot) that the pilot may very well overlook that override switch. My personal opinion is that the pilot ALWAYS trumps the autopilot, and even having an override switch to give full authority back to the pilot is a step too far the wrong direction. Your opinions may vary, but that's mine.
Ummm...assuming you are talking about what used to be called Positive Controlled Airspace, and now is called Class-A airspace, it exists from 18,000 feet MSL and 60,000 feet MSL over most of the continental U.S.A. This implies that 1) isn't possible (you've got to get from the surface to 18,000 MSL somehow) and 2) isn't going to happen, because it is where commercial airliners cruise (and that's pretty much the reason for this airspace -- to provide separation and positive control of high-speed aircraft along busy routes of flight).
there were some catastrophes essentialy due to humans arguing with the machine...
And there have been other casualties where the humans were right. Specifically, I am thinking of an Airbus incident in India (IIRC) where they encountered turbulence at night in IFR (instrument flight rules) conditions and all three of the flight computers decided the airplane couldn't possibly be in the flight attitude the sensors reported, and therefore rebooted. At the same time. The cockpit went dark and the flight controls stopped responding until the computers were back on-line...meanwhile, the airplane was out of control in turbulence. Maybe I'm biased, but human >> computer, IMHO.
The problem with your argument of computers vs. pilots is that for the foreseeable future, human beings have a huge edge in the realm of creative thinking. There are numerous example of an emergency causing some type of failure that was not covered in training or procedures but where the pilots in the cockpit were able to devise a procedure that brought them to a successful outcome. The Gimli Glider is one example. Another example was the MD-11 (IIRC) that blew all of the hydraulic flight controls, but the pilot was able to fly it safely to the airport using differential power. Until AI gets to the point where computers are capable of creative thought, they will never be able to match the intuitive power of the human mind.
That may address the issue of a software glitch causing a drone to violate IFR separation (because in visual conditions, it would be pretty easy to see and avoid something like a Global Hawk). However, it does nothing to address the issue of a software glitch causing a drone to have a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) or other navigational/control issue.
In any case, even if traffic density over a foreign country is much less on average than traffic density over the U.S., there will still be hubs around airports (which the drones most likely will be flying in and out of) with much higher than average traffic density.
Slashdot Mirror
Spamhaus was acting in America regardless of where their offices are. They are subject to U.S. law...
You are really stretching for that one. If I ran a web server in the U.S. (and I do, although it's off-line right now) and I post content that is illegal in somewhere else, am I subject to a foreign country's laws just because someone in that country visits my web server? For example, suppose I have a gallery of airplane pictures, and I post a picture of a German Luftwaffe airplane from WWII with a Swastika prominently displayed on it (I haven't, but it is not far-fetched to see how it could happen, since archived photos from WWII or photos of restored airplanes might have such images) . IIRC, that would technically violate French law, which I believe bans Swastikas under their "hate speech" laws. I don't live in France, and I can't realistically prevent people in France from visiting my web site. Are you seriously suggesting that I am now subject to French fines and/or jail time for this? That's absurd. For that to be a valid position to take, everyone who ever posts any content anywhere on the Web would have to be an expert in the laws of every country on earth.
No the problem was they initially turned up and then walked out.
"Spamhaus didn't mount a defense in the case; the ruling was a default judgment in absence of counterarguments." That's a little grey, but it sounds to me like Spamhaus didn't initially show up. If you've got a citation that suggests otherwise, please post it.
Spamhaus/their lawyers f**ked up
How do you figure? Spamhaus (wisely, IMHO) looked at the case, decided they could spend boatloads of money fighting a frivolous lawsuit which they would *probably* -- but NOT necessarily -- win, or since they are not in the U.S.' jurisdiction, they could save themselves the worry and the stress by ignoring the lawsuit. The court that awarded the win to the spammer has no jurisdiction in the U.K. so as long as Spamhaus' CEO doesn't come to the U.S., what difference does it make to him? It's not like he's going to be extradited for this. If somebody sues me in a foreign country that I never intend to visit, the odds of me spending any money or effort to fight the lawsuit are somewhere between zero and none. Spamhaus did likewise.
...the result was they had to pay a spammer for the f**kup.
Ummm, no. The result was a judge ordered them to pay a spammer for their strategic decision. It may be subtle, but there is a difference between a judge ordering you to do something and actually having to do it. As long as you are not in the judge's jurisdiction, you don't have to do anything they order.
Point taken, and in that context, I completely agree with you.
Broken link aside though, he asked for evidence of your faith and you gave him a link to your blog.
Yes, I did. You wanted me to post several years worth of experience on /. instead? My blog doesn't generate revenue for me. I'm not running ads on it, I'm not looking for a publisher to sign me, etc. It's a personal blog where I relate exactly what HeckRuler asked for, so I linked to it as an expediency. If you think its poor form to do that, well, don't read it, then.
Oops...left the "http://" off. Let's try again here.
More than I can share here. But if you're really interested, here you go.
By definition, faith is belief in something without evidence. Science requires the collection and examination of evidence.
No, faith is not the belief in something without evidence. It is the belief in something based upon personal experience. I love science, and I have great respect for the scientific method. I am also a person of faith, based upon my personal experience (and to a limited degree, the experience of people I trust). I do not consider the two standpoints of a love of science and my personal faith to be mutually contradictory. I do wish, however, that people on *both* sides of the faith vs. science debate would get off their high horses and accept that there is room for science and faith to coexist peacefully.
Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?
No. They require you to get a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [].
If your database is processing queries when your backup runs, yes. Ours don't, so it's not really an issue in my environment. But that *is* a good point.
Perhaps you are making this more complex than it has to be. I've had zero success simply copying the files and filesystems from a Windows server to backup and then being able to restore anything but data -- you can't reinstall a Windows OS from the moral equivalent of a Linux "cp -R" command. Linux, however, does not share this feature. You can -- and I have -- use rsync or tar to copy the entire filesystem off of a Linux machine to your backup device, then restore an entire machine -- data and OS. The only caveat is that you will need to partition the disk on the replacement machine to match the partitions on the original machine, or else you will need to modify /etc/fstab to reflect the new partitioning scheme.
/backup directory. Then on the servers you manage, have them run "rsync -av / rsync://rsyncserver.example.com/backup/rsyncclient.example.com/" (where you replace "rsyncserver.example.com" with the name or IP address of your rsync server and "rsyncclient.example.com" with the name of the client you are trying to back up).
So what I do is build a backup server with a huge disk array, big enough for all the data on all the machines you manage, or at least for all the machines you want to write to this backup server. Configure rsync.conf to have a
As soon as we detect the presence of oil on the planet :D
My political affiliations are always subject to change :) If the Republicans can get back to what they originally stood for (smaller Federal government, personal freedom, etc.) I'll jump back on-board. For now, however, my political affiliations tend more towards Libertarian.
:)
FWIW, however, I never, ever just vote the party line, either for or against. I have voted for candidates from Republican, Democratic and Libertarian camps (although I doubt I'll ever be convinced to vote for someone from the Communist Party
Wow! What a huge difference! I'm almost convinced he's not like 99% of politicians!
Did I say he wasn't? No. I said he was neither "milquetoast" (sissy, pantywaist, pansy, milksop, Milquetoast (a timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive)) nor "centrist" (centrist, middle of the roader, moderate, moderationist (a person who takes a position in the political center)). Let's take these one at a time.
While Bush catered to big business, Obama has been essentially been playing out a hostile takeover of big business. The end result may be very, very similar to what Bush was doing (the marriage of government and big business), but there is one essential difference: in Obama's vision, he wears the pants in the relationship. That's hardly "milquetoast". It's assertive. You might be able to pin the "milquetoast" label on GWB (and I would argue that his response to 9/11 is very reminiscent of the schoolyard bully, which further supports that argument), but not Obama.
Furthermore, Obama's policies are very, very socialist -- certainly not middle-of-the road, so he's definitely not "centrist". Rather, he leans so far left, he could pick up a ruble without even bending his knees.
Call me when you finish grade school and understand politics with a little more nuance.
Pot...kettle...black? Why don't you call me back when you can do more to rebut arguments than call names?
Because the modern Republican party is not really Republican. That's why I no longer consider myself Republican (and haven't for a long time).
I'm an American, and I approve this comment.
Sorry -- couldn't resist. But you are exactly right. It sickens me to see what my country has become.
I know that is how it has been rewritten^Winterpreted by the courts, but that is B.S. If I am not in the country, you have no right to search me because I am not in your jurisdiction. If I am in the country and therefore in your jurisdiction, then I have the rights outlined in the Constitution. Take your pick; you can't have it both ways.
Whether or not it has been upheld by the Supreme Court, it is still bogus: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Unfortunately, we can't just let it go at that. We have to define what actually consitutues "unreasonable" or a "search" or a "seizure" and that's where we get into trouble. "Well, it's not unreasonable to search someone entering the country" becomes "It's not unreasonable to take away ('seize') the laptop or PDA/smartphone of an unremarkable person entering the country so that we can examine it ('search') for unlawful content, even though we have nothing to suggest they may actually have anything unlawful ('probable cause')...and of course, once we have it, it takes some time to actually copy^Wlook at^W^Wexamine all their naughty photos^W^Wdata to make sure there is nothing incriminating on it." I mean, you've got nothing to hide, so what are you afraid of, right? You're not a criminal or pedophile or ter'rist, are you? </sarc>
"centrist, milquetoast"?!?! What are you smoking and where can I get some?
I won't argue that Bush was awful -- I've said as much for several years now, so I clearly have no love for the Facist^WRepublican party -- but calling Obama centrist and milquetoast is absurd. He seems to have every bit as much love of government control as Bush, but whereas the neo-cons are owned by big business, Obama wants to government to own big business. In either case, government and big business will be locked at the hip, to the detriment of "We the People".
7.5 miles/sec (11.3 km/sec) sounds about right for a Hayabusa <grin>
Ummm, the requisite conditions, "...in the heart of unpopulated Australia..."...and "a small town in the area...", don't play well together.
That's completely ignoring the likelihood that an alien biological contaminant would be incompatible with life on earth. In other words, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Good job. Based on one post -- and reading a lot more into that post than what I ever said -- you've decided I'm a flag-waving 'Mer'can patriot. You've got a lot of insight If you actually knew anything about me at all, you'd know how incredibly stupid that position is.
Bottom line is this: I trust a pilot waaaay more than I trust silicon. There are times when an autopilot is better. They are more consistent. They don't suffer from kinesthetic illusions (look it up). They are more precise. But they are also totally devoid of insight or any spark of creative thinking. When a catastrophic failure that the engineers never envisioned occurs (and, although rare, it does occur), there is NO substitute for a human being at the controls. Having one more step to take (flicking off a switch that gives the pilots control) in an emergency is a Bad Thing. The airliner that crash landed in the Hudson had one item on the checklist that the pilots didn't get to -- in a water ditching, you have to close a valve that bleeds cockpit pressure outside. They didn't, and as a result, the airplane filled up with water and sank quicker than it would have otherwise. One switch, that's it...but they were stressed and pressed for time, and that one switch -- which isn't used very often -- was overlooked. In the same way, when the airplane suddenly does something abnormal and the pilot tries to wrest control back from the autopilot, it seems highly likely to me (and I AM a pilot) that the pilot may very well overlook that override switch. My personal opinion is that the pilot ALWAYS trumps the autopilot, and even having an override switch to give full authority back to the pilot is a step too far the wrong direction. Your opinions may vary, but that's mine.
Ummm...assuming you are talking about what used to be called Positive Controlled Airspace, and now is called Class-A airspace, it exists from 18,000 feet MSL and 60,000 feet MSL over most of the continental U.S.A. This implies that 1) isn't possible (you've got to get from the surface to 18,000 MSL somehow) and 2) isn't going to happen, because it is where commercial airliners cruise (and that's pretty much the reason for this airspace -- to provide separation and positive control of high-speed aircraft along busy routes of flight).
there were some catastrophes essentialy due to humans arguing with the machine...
And there have been other casualties where the humans were right. Specifically, I am thinking of an Airbus incident in India (IIRC) where they encountered turbulence at night in IFR (instrument flight rules) conditions and all three of the flight computers decided the airplane couldn't possibly be in the flight attitude the sensors reported, and therefore rebooted. At the same time. The cockpit went dark and the flight controls stopped responding until the computers were back on-line...meanwhile, the airplane was out of control in turbulence. Maybe I'm biased, but human >> computer, IMHO.
The problem with your argument of computers vs. pilots is that for the foreseeable future, human beings have a huge edge in the realm of creative thinking. There are numerous example of an emergency causing some type of failure that was not covered in training or procedures but where the pilots in the cockpit were able to devise a procedure that brought them to a successful outcome. The Gimli Glider is one example. Another example was the MD-11 (IIRC) that blew all of the hydraulic flight controls, but the pilot was able to fly it safely to the airport using differential power. Until AI gets to the point where computers are capable of creative thought, they will never be able to match the intuitive power of the human mind.
Irrelevant.
That may address the issue of a software glitch causing a drone to violate IFR separation (because in visual conditions, it would be pretty easy to see and avoid something like a Global Hawk). However, it does nothing to address the issue of a software glitch causing a drone to have a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) or other navigational/control issue.
In any case, even if traffic density over a foreign country is much less on average than traffic density over the U.S., there will still be hubs around airports (which the drones most likely will be flying in and out of) with much higher than average traffic density.