Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Publicly Funded Governments (Score 1) 148

No, when you install RHEL you get a choice, you do not have to have the gui at all or you can choose the ones on the disk or you can install another from RPM.

Just an FYI, you do not have to have the gui installed to use the gui installs for an app. All you need is a small subset of the libraries, not the whole WM. The client (Person doing the install) can use a lot of different software on their end, I am only going to point out two possible solutions. They can use cygwin and ssh with an exported X display then start the app install, or they could use putty and exceed in the same manner. Ether way it does not need to be a gui on the server. Heck with cygwin and ssh you can create a simple icon on the users desktop to connect, export the display, and start the application all in background so the user never needs to learn or use the WM on linux.

Comment: Re:Well, that's bad news... (Score 4, Insightful) 370

by Anon-Admin (#47725819) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

I nether believe in global warming nor do I deny that it could be happening. I am simply interested in the science put forward and am open to adjusting my hypothesis based on the observed and tested results.

With that out of the way, the fact that some scientists are saying that there is no actual "Hiatus" and producing numbers to back up there claims while others are examining the temperature data and looking for new systems and processes that explain the changes they are seeing worries me. It tells me that some in the scientific community have abandon the scientific method and are attempting to make the data fit the hypothesis they have. Don't get me wrong, this happens far more often in science than most believe. However, in such a hot political topic one must be vigilant and make sure that the politics does not overshadow the truth we learn through science.

Ether way you look at it, the discovery of a new process within the chaotic system of the atmosphere simply adds more data to the mix and allows us to better understand the processes.

Comment: Re:not a Holy war (Score 1) 148

by Anon-Admin (#47724631) Attached to: Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access To Free Software

Free software can be problematic also.

For one, serious use isn't free...enterprise use requires growing or renting expertise. Many of the major stuff, such as Mozilla, are supported by groups that actually do at least in part require funding.

They dont need expertise in windows? Both require someone to make it work.

For another, all open licenses are not the same - can matter depending on what one intends to do

True, but no one reads the Microsoft Licensing agreement. If legal ever did read it they would not allow the software to be installed. I know because I did a search and replace on the word Microsoft in their licensing agreement and then submitted it to legal. Legal put a stop to the install because we could not agree to the licensing terms of the software. They were surprised when I let them know it was Microsoft and eventually allowed the install.

Yet another, sometimes unintended consequences like Heartbleed are included equally 'free' yea right.

Ill take heartbleed security issue with the SSL cryptography over the millions of windows viruses any day.

Then there are things like shooter games and windows vs linux.

I really dont care which. Windows has it's uses as does Linux. Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Finally, some of the commercial stuff works well in some respects,; Chrome is not bad on security although personally I do not like it's approach to customizations and store aps (Chrome is not exactly free it's part of the driving forward of the Googlezillan Empire)

You are right, some of the commercial apps are great and well worth the $$ you pay for them. However, the decision should be made on a technical level by the IT people who know what they are doing and not by a politician who can not even spell IT.

Also, some political entities, being supposedly sovereign, actually support intellectual property in the sense that Windows or Nvidia or HP drivers are not penetrable by ordinary mortals, but at least most of the time developed in a coherent manner. I myself prefer the idea that inventors/investors/first movers will do at least as well without DMCA, but not everyone agrees.

But laws saying what software can be used or dictating the OS to use is just stupid. That is not a matter for government it is a matter that should be decided by the IT departments in government. Laws saying that the data storage formats have to be open and available for review would be good but that does not appear to be what is going on here.

Comment: Re:Publicly Funded Governments (Score 1) 148

by Anon-Admin (#47724493) Attached to: Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access To Free Software

Wait, GNOME3 does not play nice in a virtual environment so you are left with Microsoft??? where did that come from?

Dont use Gnome3, I never use a gui on a server but if you are making a terminal server as you say then use any of the other WM's From KDE to FVWM, there are lots of WM choices and you are not just stuck with the default. Well with linux you are not stuck with the default, cant say the same for Windows.

See http://xwinman.org/

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 146

by Anon-Admin (#47716261) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

So your argument is that if you are in public you do not have an "expectation of privacy"? There is no such statement in the 4th amendment and no exception for public interest. I find it funny that you said "require consensual searches" If it is required it is not consensual!

You are wrong, you can refuse to be searched when walking down the street, you can refuse to allow a cop to search your car when you are pulled over. Your right is to be secure in your PERSONS, PAPERS, and EFFECTS. That includes your shoes, luggage, and your clothing. What you are doing is justifying a trade of others rights on the believe that it will bring you some security. Now, your next point will be a cop stopping you and patting you down on the street being legal. It is only legal when there is a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a criminal activity. Getting on a plane is not a criminal activity.

BTW, There were guns on planes prior to the 1970's Hijackings did not start tell they banned them. Go figure.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 146

by Anon-Admin (#47716163) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

My argument is that they are government agents bound by the restrictions of the constitution. The reason that it is not an issue with private security is because it can be a contractual stipulation of purchase.

Just like being searched on the way out of a store is voluntary and you can simply decline, where as being searched on the way out of Sam's or Cosco is a stipulation of the contract and can not be declined without giving up your purchase and membership.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 4, Insightful) 146

by Anon-Admin (#47714601) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Yes, it is. The 4th amendment says

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

They are not getting warrants, there is no probable cause unless getting on a plane is probable cause to believe you are going to destroy it. There is no Oath or affirmation and no description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

People do not seem to realize that your rights are given to you by your creator and the constitution only reaffirms that and states that the government can not violate those rights. It does not give you the rights and does not say anything about permission to violate because you enter a store, airport, car, train station, or the bathroom of your own house.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, if they wanted it to be Constitutional they could have created an amendment that allowed the acceptation, voted on it, ratified it amongst the states, and then enforced it. Instead they ignored the Constitution, threw the existing law of the land out the window and the government did as they pleased. It is wrong, it is a violation of law, and a violation of the Constitution!

BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport. The second they put Government Security Agents (TSA) in place it became unconstitutional.

And now I bet I am on the no-fly list for this post. Another unconstitutional action the government takes.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...