Network security yes.
the OMG Cisco is buying them and the Gov will spy on me now is what I could live without.
Network security yes.
Thanks Googleing is all fine and good but a recommendation from someone that used it makes all the difference IMHO.
The electorate fully agrees with him.
This is completely untrue. The electorate is pretty divided, and whether you can find a majority depends which poll you look at, and which week. The fact is that there is a significant part of the electorate that thinks bulk surveillance is fine because they have nothing to hide and it keeps us safe. That they're wrong on both counts doesn't change their opinion, or their votes
Congress mostly agrees with him.
And yet they passed the USA Freedom Act which, although better than the PATRIOT Act, still authorizes way too much surveillance. And in the process they failed to do anything to curtail article 702 of the FISA, which is the basis for the FISA court's ruling -- as was completely predictable before passage of USA Freedom. The argument is that while article 702 authorizes only surveillance of foreign people, the court considers it perfectly reasonable for the NSA to hoover up ALL the data and then figure out later what they can and cannot look at. This all comes back to the NSA's choice to define "collect" as "look at", since the law hadn't defined the term.
Congress had a perfect opportunity to define "collect" as "collect", and chose not to.
Yeah, we have a problem here. And the "democratically elected government" ain't it.
The problem is fundamentally the electorate, which isn't sufficiently convinced that bulk data collection is a bad thing. If 80% of the voters wanted it shut down, enough to make it a major election issue, it would be shut down. But as is Congress knows that with a slim majority (at best) concerned about data collection, if they shut it down and then Something Bad happened the voters would turn on them like a rabid dog.
The system isn't perfect, but it is basically working as intended. We just need to convince more of our fellow Americans that surveillance is bad.
... it's just a little more than 1% the size of OpenSSL...Notably, s2n does not provide all the additional cryptographic functions that OpenSSL provides in libcrypto, it only provides the SSL/TLS functions....
So then, aren't size comparisons between OpenSSL and s2n at best useless, and at worst intentionally misleading?
No, but this particular comparison is. Besides all of the stuff s2n doesn't provide, s2n actually uses OpenSSL's libcrypto to provide the implementations of all of its crypto algorithm. A useful comparison could be made between OpenSSL's TLS layer and s2n, with some caveats listing the TLS features s2n doesn't provide.
Note that none of this means that s2n doesn't have value. If you don't need the other OpenSSL features, it's a lot less code to audit.
This is for a cluster that is being used not an exhibit in a glass box.
I think modifying the existing power supplies is probably the best way to go today. Replace the caps and possibly the voltage regulators with newer parts might be a really good way to go today.
I would suggest starting a project to create a modern PS that could be a drop in replacement for the old one. It could use a lot less power and be more reliable in the long run.
No one owes him anything. It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not. There are lots of reasons for writing code.
It's absolutely not a stupid line. The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right. Surely this other developer can write his own code too? Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.
As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so. For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license. There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.
I can't believe you would say these things and advocate killing more innocents, even if you're just playing devils advocate! And you got modded up too. But even worse you pass judgements on individuals you know nothing about.
I guess you haven't read up on the drone pilot news lately then. Burn-out is super high because drone pilots do have consciences. One guy talked about being ordered to fire on some bad guys, shooting a missile at them, and then watching as one of them bled to death in the sand. On IR camera he could see the guy slowly get cold. That was more traumatic than you and I know. The effects of this and other incidences on this pilot have led to debilitating emotional difficulties. And that's not an uncommon experience.
Now this same pilot, had he been over in Afghanistan, in the thick of things, and under real danger and fire could have killed without remorse. The justification would be as much self defense as anything. But far removed from the action, the trauma of killing was much much more intense. And then going home afterward to a "normal" life with the wife an kids just amplifies the trauma for many personnel.
If you want to target the inhuman American war machine, go ahead. War crimes are war crimes, no doubt about it. But to claim drone pilots have no conscience is just wrong.
actually I am not very worried about DNS privacy.
I just wish we could go back to the old days of Slashdot when it was all about cool dads building battlemech tree houses instead of the tin foil hat crowd.
You tool of the megacorps how dare you bring up facts that distort that crusader for freedom's self identified truth.
So any DNS you use could do this.
So isn't it logical to use one that is being run by a massive competent company that is already making huge profits and has the whole world watching them vs some small org that is just trying to make ends meet that no one is paying attention to.
Frankly if I was the CIA I would be intercepting traffic to the small oddball servers more than Google.
you've also never had a mini-gun pointed at him by private "security" personal
There are private security personnel with miniguns? Are they accepting applications? I don't actually want the job, I just want to go through training and shoot the guns.
The ideal would be for it to be smooth until the natural transition point then have vortex generators.
If you look at a lot of aircraft the will have flush rivets over the front part of the fuselage and regular over the back for that reason. Some will have vortex generators on the wings as well also for that same effect.
Pretty much. The only pop-ups I can see are navigation prompts.
Navigation prompts are going to decrease your attention to the road but far less than a map would.
You've been misinformed. I don't blame you, but you've apparently never read the GPL. It explicitly says:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Thus you are free to download and use it for any purpose, provided you do not redistribute it or derive software from it. Pretty clear.
Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license. You would be correct. And you won't get any sympathy either. As they say, write your own code!