Comment Re:FAKE (Score 1) 80
WAIT.... it would be even cooler if they did that. You just turned the NES into a modular Blade Server chassis!
Imagine if you could pull that off on one of the dual-cartridge systems.
WAIT.... it would be even cooler if they did that. You just turned the NES into a modular Blade Server chassis!
Imagine if you could pull that off on one of the dual-cartridge systems.
The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.
This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I would totally support and push for this. All government employees must provide the government information about all personal / non-government email accounts and provide access to all their e-mail messages upon request, even for personal accounts.
The decision about whether an e-mail message, personal or not, becomes a public record, should be made by a trusted 3rd party and be separate from what infrastructure the message happens to go over..
Most e-mail messages should not be allowed to become public records, but they should be securely retained for a period for audit purposes; primarily to establish that the personal account is not being used for official business.
Even messages even involving their official account should not become public records, with the exception of some things like:
But e-mail not part of a record required should be required to be retained and be discoverable with a mandatory retention period for all departments of least 20 years, under seal for adjudication of legal matters, or issues under official investigation.
RHEL teaching cluster and workstations just don't have chrome installed.
RHEL6 is 'too old' for a great many new things.... try Firefox or an older edition of Chrome I consider RHEL great for servers, but it's a horrible platform to base a Desktop build on, IMO.
Even if it's more bleeding edge--- I would stick with Fedora, or an Ubuntu or ElementaryOS based build. In the past I also used SuSE, for this.
If you want to do that, you don't really want a welcoming, inclusive community, what you want is a community of elite according to a set of standards.
No... you by definition want a restricted community. Which may be welcoming and inclusive, with exceptions.
Labelling "Community of elite" may well be one of those opinion / destructive element thingies.
Sometimes communities want a meritocracy, not an elite.
No, you're not entitled to your opinion. Or to be more precise, you are only entitled to contradictory opinions that you actually establish as valid through sound well-reasoned argument, otherwise destructive elements can come to stay, while the leaders and proven good-thinkers become burdened by wave after wave of newcomers, as in Eternal September , as no burden of proof is laid upon those with views contradictory to those moving development forward.
BusyBox is part of the source code ISO's on their website. Don't even need a login to grab them.
Have you inspected these? If I recall correctly, the complaint made in the past was that the version on their website contained versions of open source components that had not been updated with new releases of ESXi, and some of them may have contained the original component, and not the source to VMware's highly customized versions.
Following the release; I anticipate good security reasons not to run old versions that require TSYNC, to reject the patch requiring it is a lot like rejecting a patch that fixes a buffer overflow or other typical RCE. The TSYNC feature impacts security, and the lack of the feature might eventually result in system compromise.
That doesn't make sense. TSYNC is a security-enhancing feature.
Chrome uses seccomp-bpf for Sandboxing.... that is isolating certain threads from the system.
TSYNC facilitates software correctness with regards to the security. Without TSYNC, there is a greater likelihood of problems in the application leading to system compromise.
So I'm quite satisfied by Google's choice to refuse to run their browser on kernels that don't support current security features.
Firefox, Konqueror, Midori, Epihani, Opera, Arora, etc, should do the same.
Of course, they will have to implement multi-threaded Sandboxing functionality first.
A functional conspiracy to secretly undermine a project like Tor would need to involve a significant portion of the American population.
Or one government department spending a whole lot of taxpayer money on a project intended to negate the success of another department who spent a whole lot of taxpayer money on the project targetted for negation. It wouldn't be the first time.
They don't need to conspire against ToR... they just need to find as many flaws in the software as possible, keep them secret, exploit them, oh yeah, and produce a large enough DDoS the infrastructure supporting ToR and the software distribution points and development servers continuously to make the network unusuable and quash development.
Best Strategies For Teaching Kids CS Skills With Basic?
Coming soon to a theatre near you.....
Driver sub-system specific frameworks and further more generic services and data-structures
VMware can implement all the data structures, generic service definitions, and frameworks they want, such as having the same function names, and struct files, the "Headers", without necessarily having to copy the executable code that is defined in those frameworks.
The software program is subject to copyright. The use or re-implementation of interfaces to a software program are considered fair use, and it's an important concept behind open source, that the interfaces when different packages talk to each other allow drop-in replacement of one program for another, such as a new open source software program to control your proprietary piece of hardware.
These function prototypes, struct formats, and interface definitions, "the headers"; are either not subject to copyright, or Linux itself and many GNU projects would be in deep trouble, because in the Linux world copying structs and headers from proprietary software is a common practice, that actually is part of what allows GNU to even exist.
So if they made that argument in court that the frameworks are subject to copyright, it would also be a major setback for many open source software projects such as Wine, or even various GCC projects.
And the Linux kernel as well.... if the Linux kernel struct formats and headers were subject to copyrights, then struct formats used to control hardware would be as well, and Microsoft could sue Linux developers over making a driver for hardware device X that used a struct for control based on a Microsoft copyrighted standard.
Also, SCO probably should have won if this was the case, and since POSIX itself is copyrighted, and header files in many BSD-related OSes include fundamental interface definitions that are copyrighted with no license to use.....
However, they didn't stop there, from what I understand. They also have ESXi use Linux GPL drivers.
GPL drivers, such as?
Note.... ESXi does not ship with a large collection of drivers. They have a rather exclusive hardware compatibility list. If it's not in the list, then there is probably not a driver included.
To say this might be a GPL violation, you would need to find a driver that is GPL'd and also only available under GPL. Many of the GPL'd drivers are developed by the hardware vendors who can provide the binary code for use with VMware under other times, since it's their driver, they can license their work for other uses freely, as they will.
VMware could also get around this problem by distributing just the source code for the GPL'd driver, since these are discrete software modules that you compile, then copy the binary into ESXi, then load; VMware can distribute the driver modules which could even be the same source code as in the Linux kernel, without needing to GPL vmklinux or vmkernel itself.
For the small number of hardware drivers that they do have included, they are distributed as loadable files called
~ # esxcli software vib list | grep ixg
net-ixgbe 3.21.4-1OEM.550.0.0.1331820 Intel VMwareCertified 2014-09-30
~ #
Also, what's preventing them from becoming Americans further down the road if they chose?
Their aspirations to become president of the US will be severely cut short if they lose their ability to be considered a natural born citizen.
NO, parents make decisions for their kids when they are too young to do so.
Not this decision. And not all decisions. For example, a parent cannot bind their kid to a contract or decide to have their kid borrow $1 million and enter a promise to repay on the kid's behalf that applies past age 18.
Citizenship involves rights and future responsibilities the individual has to agree to.
The selection of citizenships is decision that is considered personal to the individual. This is one of those things that is supposed to be left to the person to decide, regardless of the parent's opinion ---- it is the decision the person has to make and live with.
In most cases, the parents don't even have any right to any influence at all over citizenship.
For example: you cannot renounce the citizenship of your child that is already recognized as a US citizen, an agent or representative cannot take actions regarding your citizenship, someone who is mentally incompetent cannot have a guardian do it for them. Minors have to demonstrate to the consular that they are acting voluntarily and fully understand the consequences and implications.
It's more than just tax paperwork. There are asset declaration forms to send to Treasury Dept. Failure to file these can result in prison sentences.
Since you wouldn't be living in the US.... probably there are no assets that US law provides you any rights to control over, they fall out of the limited powers provided of the US constitution, so there are no possible lawful acts by the US government with respect to these; if you live in Belgium, for example, the home you live in is Belgium property governed by Belgium law.
Belgium law might give direction of the property to your person, since you directed what Belgium law recognizes as a transfer of one thing you are in control of for another, but the real-estate is outside of US jurisdiction, so no US law can grant or recognize you as having a right to direct the use of this property, since the land is on another country's soil.
Since no privilege or right you have under US law and no privilege or right you have under any treaty gives you the right to direct use of that property inside Belgium, it is not your asset... it is Belgium's asset that you have been afforded a right to control, a legal right valid only within their jurisdiction: so there is no sense reporting it to another country outside their jurisdiction, where your legal right to control that property would not be valid.
The same would apply to all your belongings and accounts in Belgium.... these aren't assets, since you can control them only in belgium... you don't "own" things, ultimately everything belongs to the state, except in Belgium you have a right to direct their use and disposition.
Oh yeah, and as long as you don't export anything from Belgium, there isn't a goddammed thing any other country can do about that, even to pry and try to figure out what exactly those things are, let alone attempt to gain control of some of them.
"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken
