To hope is to long for circumstances to change. That is to say, one rejects what is real and wishes instead for a fantasy.
Fundamentally, hope is a rejection of truth, and hence the antithesis of enlightenment.
I completely disagree. When I proposed to my wife, I hoped she would say yes. Hope was the desire for a specific outcome without knowing that outcome in advance. Since she is now my wife, my hope was not a rejection of what is real.
Now, hope without action is pretty stupid. Hoping that she would be my wife without actually taking the steps to court her and eventually pop the question would be rather foolish.
Okay, help me understand. Why is the above post marked troll? Someone asked why the hate for systemd and the parent post gives a rational response why he hates systemd, complete with example. If you feel that he was wrong (or just being an idiot about not knowing what to do), why not state you should have fill in the blank here and make him look like an idiot versus marking him as a troll? That way everyone gets the advantage of why you think he's trolling.
I guess I got a partial answer in that the next person who gave a reasonable explanation was also marked as troll. Seems like someone advocating systemd is marking anyone they disagree with troll.
Tar up your files. Encrypt with GPG and a 20 character random passphrase.
Upload to a cloud service, and put on a USB drive at work and the house of a friend and relative.
Why bother trying to find storage media made of unobtainium that can withstand fire or flood or theft, when you can simply and easily make a copy and store it multiple times in multiple places immune to most loss events?
FTFY.
Multiple backups. Multiple media types. Multiple locations.
Corrupting [marriage] into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.
But that's generally not what people who are gay are doing. I know two women that raised two or three kids together. Their marriage would not have been "just" about sex. Their marriage would have been a statement to the world that this is the person that comes first for me, which is pretty much the same statement that my hetero marriage does.
But, based on your statement, what about hetero marriages where the couple find they are infertile? At that point is their marriage "purely based on decadent sex"? If so, should we force their marriage to be annulled if they find they can't have children? What if they get married past their childbearing years?
If [one of] the purposes of marriage is to declare monogamy towards one other person, why shouldn't gays be able to publicly declare such a thing? Wouldn't encouraging gay marriage be a means of reducing promiscuous sex?
Honestly, go through and write down all of the reasons that marriage (of any form) should be recognized and then objectively ask yourself if that reason would also apply to a gay couple. Keep in mind that with artificial insemination and adoption, gay couples can be parents. If you get over your own revolution to the gay lifestyle, you might find that your objections to gay marriage start to fall away.
I think you and I are in complete agreement across the board. I would mod you up.
Not every new technology that comes along is worth knowing. It might be worth learning, but that doesn't mean it's worth knowing.
As a developer, you have to update your skills along the way, if for no other reason to keep you ability to learn and improve going. I've seen too many times where we've had an inflection point (e.g., moving from Fortran to OO) and you can see it in the eyes one of the developers: I'm not going to make this transition. At that point, their useful life as a developer are numbered.
But that doesn't mean you should constantly jump to the latest buzz. You'll never actually produce something lasting if you don't have a solid foundation of things that work.
Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.
Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.
Or quite possibly the NSA had the needle of necessary information buried in a gigantic hay stack of useless dreck. In this case, if you know absolutely everything then you effectively know nothing.
So yeah, my freedom of religious expression is protected by the Bill of Rights, while your "choice" to like the same sex isn't.
But at the same time, your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. That's where legal technicalities get interesting.
But let's look at it from a different point of view, let's say that I own a large restaurant with attached back room that I will let out to various parties. As a private citizen, do I have the right to not let to the First Church of the Unredeemed? Am I really a private citizen at this point, or am I company doing business with the public? Am I allowed to discriminate against your religion? If not, why not? The constitution restricts what the government can do, not what I (or my business) can do.
The bottom line though is, people wanting to discriminate against gays doing normal things like hold weddings or lease an apartment are on the wrong side of history. In 50 years discriminating against gays will be as repugnant as discriminating against blacks today.
Will all anti-gay attitudes be wiped out? No. People are people. Just as there are open racists today, there will be open anti-gays in 50 years, but the majority will look down on the bigots.
Okay, I missed it. Other than her own ego, who wants her to run? I haven't heard anyone say that she was going to be their first choice, or second, or third. Maybe I'm too close to the tech industry, but I have no clue who her target market is. Other than her ego, she has no core constituency.
"Democrat Party" is what conservatives call it because the idea of a "democratic party" offends them. You don't hear too much mention of the "Republic Party".
Nonsense. It has to do with what easily flows off the tongue. "Democrat party" just flows easier than "Democratic party." Only an overly sensitive, emotional cripple would make an issue of it.
Bullshit. It was only once the Democratic party got bunch of thin skinned people looking for insults so that they could recoil in horror at normal and innocuous comments that it became a slur.
Frankly, your whining about it now reminds me a lot of my mother who could find an insult where none was intended. Either grow a thicker skin or get the fuck off the playground.
And how many until the US no longer exists in its current form?
Good question. I think there will be some interesting inflection points coming up.
Individual freedom and personal liberty have been under open assault for the last several decades. We rightly objected to Bush the Lesser's domestic spying, but there seems less outrage over Obama's domestic spying (and does anyone even remember or care about Clinton's Carnivore project?).
Roe v. Wade is founded on the principle of medical privacy. Something that we are now actively wiping out. IIRC, there were 17 federal agencies looking at tracking all our medical records.
That's just on the individual privacy front. The very structure of government, the roles and responsibilities, division of authority, the meaning of law is now under open assault. If your the president and don't like a law, pretend it doesn't exist either by a policy of non-enforcement or withholding funding.
And, no. I have little hope that constitutional government will survive in the US for much longer. Far too many people have the attitude that if it's their guy doing it, it's okay. They fail to see the principles involved. If the current crop of potential presidential candidates even pays lip service to such things, it's more along the lines of they want to be the one choosing the music as the band plays on and ship goes down.
But just because our ship is going down, doesn't mean that I want to rush out and hang onto the boat anchor of the other ship that's going down either.
I agree. How do you suggest we create peace with ISIL/ISIS?
Perhaps we should not have created ISIS in the first place. Blame Obama.
Or perhaps since the local area had already mostly found an equilibrium, we should not have toppled that evil-bastard Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was evil. Yes, I would not want him for my president. But he was reasonably well contained and provided a counter balance to the other powers in the region. Blame Bush II.
We can walk our way back in time and blame [nearly?] every U.S. president regardless of party back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. We can then start blaming the Europeans for carving up the Mid-East in such a way that it was a breeding ground for future wars.
But peace? Do you have any concrete mechanisms that would actually improve the situation?
What, that in the rest of the world "center" is well to the left of the US "center"? How does that say anything about the messenger?
It means that in his world, "normal" is defined where everyone is much more left. He probably means Europe is "normal". Given that in 2 or 3 generations Europe will no longer exist in its current form, I'm not sure that it is the ideal to emulate.
Kennedy was shot by a left-wing nut. Somebody who had renounced his citizenship and gone to live in the Soviet Union, and who didn't like it there and came back to the US.
A nut to almost the degree of a Spartacist or Trotskyite.
There were plenty of people at the time that were not fond of Kennedy. One quote I remember hearing about Johnson was He may be a crook, but at least he's an American crook. A not so subtle jab at Kennedy. There was pretty wide spread belief that Kennedy only became president through ballot stuffing efforts in Chicago. Rather than challenge the results like later losers, Nixon conceded. The best thing to happen to Kennedy's long term mystique was to die young.
If Kennedy hadn't died young, the bay-of-pigs, Cuban missile crises, and Viet Nam would have all dragged his legacy down.
You mean he isn't? Shutting down a government during a time of war requires a misplaced focus on political games instead of reality.
The last time we were at war was World War II. Everything else has just been police actions. Technicalities aside, shutting down the government came with an exemption for the military.
serviscope_minor tried to show he has some form of brilliance by stating that the e-mail servers won't automatically back up data unless you configure them to. In the context of this conversation, that was an incredibly stupid statement. Almost as stupid as saying, "Well, without electricity it won't run and you never mentioned plugging the thing in."
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail.
No it's not. It's only backed up if you make your mail server actually make backups. There is nothing in the email protocol which implies backups are made. In fact sorting out backups is something you have to deal with if you run a mail server.
In context, now you're being an idiot. The records management law requires the back ups of decision making records -- which includes e-mails but not phone conversations. I remember when my kids were 5 and they would jump on every statement to try and show how it was wrong while the context would show that it was correct (or should be considered correct). Thankfully, they out grew that.
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
Bullshit considering she didn't pass the top level security clearance.
A quick google didn't show this, do you have any links that show she didn't have a clearance? Seems like it would be impossible to do her job without one (or at least, without access to classified and/or sensitive materials).
Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
Reports also indicate that there were months long gaps. Throwing that assertion into question.
None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true. The air-gap between classified and unclassified would probably prevent this, but you'd be amazed at how frequently data spills occur. If there was a data spill, it would probably be the fault of someone sending her an classified e-mail versus her generating one on her unclassified system.
Sensitive material never went through this email system.
This statement is probably completely false. Anything not reviewed and marked for public release is considered sensitive. Note that sensitive is not the same thing as classified.
They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the @state.gov address still do not have their email records saved.
But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server... who is legally responsible?
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow.
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail. At this point, phone calls are not automatically recorded -- although the phone call meta-data would certainly be traced and of value.
(By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee,
I voted for her in 2008. Given her actions and reactions to lots of different things, including the fall that may have caused a concussion, she just doesn't seem to be on the same level as she was 8 years ago. But you're right, any criticism of the presumptive Democratic nominee must only be based on nutjobbery and not legitimate concerns. I, for one, would much prefer that we get this out in the open and properly dealt with before the campaign season begins in earnest. With luck, we'll have a Democratic nominee that is presumptive.
To start with: vote out incumbents. Do it again and again with each election until behavior changes.
Vote third party. If the first candidate that gets elected fails expectations, see above.
Unfortunately, you're being contradictory. You can't vote out the incumbents by voting for the third party -- alone. If you want a third party (or indepent) to have a chance, you have to actively campaign for the candidate. Even then, it will be an uphill battle that you'll probably lose.
Slashdot Mirror
To hope is to long for circumstances to change. That is to say, one rejects what is real and wishes instead for a fantasy.
Fundamentally, hope is a rejection of truth, and hence the antithesis of enlightenment.
I completely disagree. When I proposed to my wife, I hoped she would say yes. Hope was the desire for a specific outcome without knowing that outcome in advance. Since she is now my wife, my hope was not a rejection of what is real.
Now, hope without action is pretty stupid. Hoping that she would be my wife without actually taking the steps to court her and eventually pop the question would be rather foolish.
Okay, help me understand. Why is the above post marked troll? Someone asked why the hate for systemd and the parent post gives a rational response why he hates systemd, complete with example. If you feel that he was wrong (or just being an idiot about not knowing what to do), why not state you should have fill in the blank here and make him look like an idiot versus marking him as a troll? That way everyone gets the advantage of why you think he's trolling.
I guess I got a partial answer in that the next person who gave a reasonable explanation was also marked as troll. Seems like someone advocating systemd is marking anyone they disagree with troll.
Tar up your files. Encrypt with GPG and a 20 character random passphrase.
Upload to a cloud service, and put on a USB drive at work and the house of a friend and relative.
Why bother trying to find storage media made of unobtainium that can withstand fire or flood or theft, when you can simply and easily make a copy and store it multiple times in multiple places immune to most loss events?
FTFY.
Multiple backups. Multiple media types. Multiple locations.
Corrupting [marriage] into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.
But that's generally not what people who are gay are doing. I know two women that raised two or three kids together. Their marriage would not have been "just" about sex. Their marriage would have been a statement to the world that this is the person that comes first for me, which is pretty much the same statement that my hetero marriage does.
But, based on your statement, what about hetero marriages where the couple find they are infertile? At that point is their marriage "purely based on decadent sex"? If so, should we force their marriage to be annulled if they find they can't have children? What if they get married past their childbearing years?
If [one of] the purposes of marriage is to declare monogamy towards one other person, why shouldn't gays be able to publicly declare such a thing? Wouldn't encouraging gay marriage be a means of reducing promiscuous sex?
Honestly, go through and write down all of the reasons that marriage (of any form) should be recognized and then objectively ask yourself if that reason would also apply to a gay couple. Keep in mind that with artificial insemination and adoption, gay couples can be parents. If you get over your own revolution to the gay lifestyle, you might find that your objections to gay marriage start to fall away.
There has to be a balance.
I think you and I are in complete agreement across the board. I would mod you up.
Not every new technology that comes along is worth knowing. It might be worth learning, but that doesn't mean it's worth knowing.
As a developer, you have to update your skills along the way, if for no other reason to keep you ability to learn and improve going. I've seen too many times where we've had an inflection point (e.g., moving from Fortran to OO) and you can see it in the eyes one of the developers: I'm not going to make this transition. At that point, their useful life as a developer are numbered.
But that doesn't mean you should constantly jump to the latest buzz. You'll never actually produce something lasting if you don't have a solid foundation of things that work.
Yelp and etc.
Yeah, but with Yelp you just pay them a small advertising fee and all the bad reviews magically go away.
It's not easy to know when you should take on a new technology, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take on a new technology.
And when you consistently refuse to take on new technologies, that's when the countdown to obsolescence has begun.
Why is this here?
Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.
Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.
Or quite possibly the NSA had the needle of necessary information buried in a gigantic hay stack of useless dreck. In this case, if you know absolutely everything then you effectively know nothing.
So yeah, my freedom of religious expression is protected by the Bill of Rights, while your "choice" to like the same sex isn't.
But at the same time, your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. That's where legal technicalities get interesting.
But let's look at it from a different point of view, let's say that I own a large restaurant with attached back room that I will let out to various parties. As a private citizen, do I have the right to not let to the First Church of the Unredeemed? Am I really a private citizen at this point, or am I company doing business with the public? Am I allowed to discriminate against your religion? If not, why not? The constitution restricts what the government can do, not what I (or my business) can do.
The bottom line though is, people wanting to discriminate against gays doing normal things like hold weddings or lease an apartment are on the wrong side of history. In 50 years discriminating against gays will be as repugnant as discriminating against blacks today.
Will all anti-gay attitudes be wiped out? No. People are people. Just as there are open racists today, there will be open anti-gays in 50 years, but the majority will look down on the bigots.
Her appeal to the right
Okay, I missed it. Other than her own ego, who wants her to run? I haven't heard anyone say that she was going to be their first choice, or second, or third. Maybe I'm too close to the tech industry, but I have no clue who her target market is. Other than her ego, she has no core constituency.
Nitpicking, or complete lack of imagination?
"Democrat Party" is what conservatives call it because the idea of a "democratic party" offends them. You don't hear too much mention of the "Republic Party".
Nonsense. It has to do with what easily flows off the tongue. "Democrat party" just flows easier than "Democratic party." Only an overly sensitive, emotional cripple would make an issue of it.
"Democrat Party" is a slur
Bullshit. It was only once the Democratic party got bunch of thin skinned people looking for insults so that they could recoil in horror at normal and innocuous comments that it became a slur.
Frankly, your whining about it now reminds me a lot of my mother who could find an insult where none was intended. Either grow a thicker skin or get the fuck off the playground.
And how many until the US no longer exists in its current form?
Good question. I think there will be some interesting inflection points coming up.
Individual freedom and personal liberty have been under open assault for the last several decades. We rightly objected to Bush the Lesser's domestic spying, but there seems less outrage over Obama's domestic spying (and does anyone even remember or care about Clinton's Carnivore project?).
Roe v. Wade is founded on the principle of medical privacy. Something that we are now actively wiping out. IIRC, there were 17 federal agencies looking at tracking all our medical records.
That's just on the individual privacy front. The very structure of government, the roles and responsibilities, division of authority, the meaning of law is now under open assault. If your the president and don't like a law, pretend it doesn't exist either by a policy of non-enforcement or withholding funding.
And, no. I have little hope that constitutional government will survive in the US for much longer. Far too many people have the attitude that if it's their guy doing it, it's okay. They fail to see the principles involved. If the current crop of potential presidential candidates even pays lip service to such things, it's more along the lines of they want to be the one choosing the music as the band plays on and ship goes down.
But just because our ship is going down, doesn't mean that I want to rush out and hang onto the boat anchor of the other ship that's going down either.
Peace would be much more efficient.
I agree. How do you suggest we create peace with ISIL/ISIS?
Perhaps we should not have created ISIS in the first place. Blame Obama.
Or perhaps since the local area had already mostly found an equilibrium, we should not have toppled that evil-bastard Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was evil. Yes, I would not want him for my president. But he was reasonably well contained and provided a counter balance to the other powers in the region. Blame Bush II.
We can walk our way back in time and blame [nearly?] every U.S. president regardless of party back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. We can then start blaming the Europeans for carving up the Mid-East in such a way that it was a breeding ground for future wars.
But peace? Do you have any concrete mechanisms that would actually improve the situation?
lol. Wow. This is *OLD* news. The military has been using this technology for over 20 years now.
And you can even buy it from Amazon.com
What, that in the rest of the world "center" is well to the left of the US "center"? How does that say anything about the messenger?
It means that in his world, "normal" is defined where everyone is much more left. He probably means Europe is "normal". Given that in 2 or 3 generations Europe will no longer exist in its current form, I'm not sure that it is the ideal to emulate.
As someone to the left of the D's
What the heck is to the left of the D's?
In a normal country it would be about 75% of the population.
This says far more about you than about anything else.
Somebody shot Kennedy, so he certainly qualifies.
Kennedy was shot by a left-wing nut. Somebody who had renounced his citizenship and gone to live in the Soviet Union, and who didn't like it there and came back to the US.
A nut to almost the degree of a Spartacist or Trotskyite.
There were plenty of people at the time that were not fond of Kennedy. One quote I remember hearing about Johnson was He may be a crook, but at least he's an American crook. A not so subtle jab at Kennedy. There was pretty wide spread belief that Kennedy only became president through ballot stuffing efforts in Chicago. Rather than challenge the results like later losers, Nixon conceded. The best thing to happen to Kennedy's long term mystique was to die young.
If Kennedy hadn't died young, the bay-of-pigs, Cuban missile crises, and Viet Nam would have all dragged his legacy down.
You mean he isn't? Shutting down a government during a time of war requires a misplaced focus on political games instead of reality.
The last time we were at war was World War II. Everything else has just been police actions. Technicalities aside, shutting down the government came with an exemption for the military.
Context?
serviscope_minor tried to show he has some form of brilliance by stating that the e-mail servers won't automatically back up data unless you configure them to. In the context of this conversation, that was an incredibly stupid statement. Almost as stupid as saying, "Well, without electricity it won't run and you never mentioned plugging the thing in."
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail.
No it's not. It's only backed up if you make your mail server actually make backups. There is nothing in the email protocol which implies backups are made. In fact sorting out backups is something you have to deal with if you run a mail server.
In context, now you're being an idiot. The records management law requires the back ups of decision making records -- which includes e-mails but not phone conversations. I remember when my kids were 5 and they would jump on every statement to try and show how it was wrong while the context would show that it was correct (or should be considered correct). Thankfully, they out grew that.
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
Bullshit considering she didn't pass the top level security clearance.
A quick google didn't show this, do you have any links that show she didn't have a clearance? Seems like it would be impossible to do her job without one (or at least, without access to classified and/or sensitive materials).
Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
Reports also indicate that there were months long gaps. Throwing that assertion into question.
None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true. The air-gap between classified and unclassified would probably prevent this, but you'd be amazed at how frequently data spills occur. If there was a data spill, it would probably be the fault of someone sending her an classified e-mail versus her generating one on her unclassified system.
Sensitive material never went through this email system.
This statement is probably completely false. Anything not reviewed and marked for public release is considered sensitive. Note that sensitive is not the same thing as classified.
They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the @state.gov address still do not have their email records saved.
But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server ... who is legally responsible?
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow.
It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail. At this point, phone calls are not automatically recorded -- although the phone call meta-data would certainly be traced and of value.
(By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee,
I voted for her in 2008. Given her actions and reactions to lots of different things, including the fall that may have caused a concussion, she just doesn't seem to be on the same level as she was 8 years ago. But you're right, any criticism of the presumptive Democratic nominee must only be based on nutjobbery and not legitimate concerns. I, for one, would much prefer that we get this out in the open and properly dealt with before the campaign season begins in earnest. With luck, we'll have a Democratic nominee that is presumptive.
To start with: vote out incumbents. Do it again and again with each election until behavior changes.
Vote third party. If the first candidate that gets elected fails expectations, see above.
Unfortunately, you're being contradictory. You can't vote out the incumbents by voting for the third party -- alone. If you want a third party (or indepent) to have a chance, you have to actively campaign for the candidate. Even then, it will be an uphill battle that you'll probably lose.
(I vote Thomas Jefferson because he signed the Alien and Sedition acts)
Jefferson?!? You mean John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition acts. Jefferson got them to go away.