So you recommend voting for the greater evil? Or not voting (and getting chewed out for being 'lazy')?

There's those who choose to go a bit more extreme, but they tend to end up surrounded by FBI and SWAT, often on trumped up charges.

How many times has there been a choice with a chance in hell of winning that wasn't one of the assholes?

Many Americans aren't fooled. They vote while holding their nose. They vote for the crook to keep the racist out, etc.

What strawman? Do you deny the enterprise bridge exists at NSA? Does it not more strongly suggest 8 year old with an infinite allowance rather than a serious minded professional? Do you claim the NSA has gotten in more trouble than Target for their much larger betrayal?

If anything, that was a snark, but with a strong subtext of calling the responsibility and maturity of NSA management into question.

Meanwhile, Snowden sure has an awful lot of info for someone with no access to info. If it was really as tight as you claim, he wouldn't have any documents to publish.

He has to know where the metadata comes from and where it goes in order to do his job, that is, making sure the system grabs the data and sends it where it's going.

The bulk of that data would strongly suggest that something rotten was going on.

The fact that he could access everything would in itself suggest something wasn't right. Part of a sysadmin's duty is assuring that the system is secured. A time-honored way to do that is to try accessing data you're not supposed to have and see what happens.

Yes. At target you will never find yourself repairing the bridge of the Enterprise and betraying the trust of millions of Americans might carry an actual cost.

Otherwise, probably not as much as you imagine. There is data, you necessarily know where it comes from and where it goes. You know how much there is.

Boost Mobile - $35/mo, unlimited voice, data, text.

>Comparing the disaster to the deaths from the tsunami is meaningless.

Do you even realize that the earthquake was the root cause of every death? From your post, you make it sound like the meltdown, and the earthquake were unrelated. The point being you suck as risk analysis if you don't understand that when a once in a 1000 years tsunami strikes a area, people will die in that area. The added risk to life caused by also having a nuclear plant in this area was a insignificant increase in the average risk to the people living in the area. That is why it is important to consider that a natural disaster that killed 20k people that less than 10 of those deaths are due to nuclear plants. While your correct the rational decision is to try and prevent as many deaths as possible in the future. But resources are limited, so dedicating those resources according to the most preventable paths makes the most sense. Nuclear power was probably the safest option available in 1970, every other option would likely have ended in more death and destruction in this tsunami than the one built. Should they have done more, obviously, was nuclear the correct answer
(IMO) obviously.

YES, you absolutely can. Have you ever been a sysadmin? Do you have any powers of observation whatsoever?

Sure, officially the sysadmins know nothing. Just like officially the postmaster never looks at a user's email at all, even when diagnosing the user's email problem. Gotcha!

>As the tsunami is worse, then the meltdown "doesn't count." Hurray for the amazing logic of pro-nuke fanboy

The point is Japan had a horrible natural disaster, that natural disaster was made no worse by having nuclear power in terms of life lost, despite the Japanese making almost the worst case decisions all along. IE at the time these plants were made, the only other realistic option would have been to build at least 30* more coal plants than nukes, those plants would have caused more people to be in the path of the storm, and would have exposed the local people to more radiation over their lives than the nuclear plant disaster did. If they build nuclear plants to current standards this wouldn't have been a disaster at all. So compared to today's options, nuclear is still realistically as safe of option as any. You would be better putting more effort into what housing building standards caused the 20,000 deaths and rebuilding nuclear, than the other way.

The problem is that we keep getting a 'choice' between death or bungee. Quit blaming the victim and look in to that problem.

You want to blame a 40-50 year long trend on Obama? It could be argued that in the '70s, there was general recession that depressed a lot of things. However, the trend really caught fire with Reagan. GDP shot up, income did not.

We get excuse after excuse but still income is flat while GDP soars. Somehow, the 'solution' always seems to be big tax cuts for the people whose income is already keeping up with the GDP, or less regulations on those same people, or a big fat handout to those who need it least. Yet somehow, income remains flat and GDP grows like kudzu.

To be fair, the Democrats today more closely resemble Republicans of the Nixon era. I have no idea what sort of wingnuts back in the day the GOP resemble now.

We could do with a lot more standardization. We also need to not keep the MACs in a monolithic config.

For many years now, we have had xattr support in the major filesystems (and an easy way to tack it on to legacy systems like DOS). In fact, SELinux uses a special xattr that gets set by restorecon based on the content of the config file. I don't see why not push all of it there. (Side rant, it's about time for tar to support xattrs by default).

Allowing files to have more than one type would be a plus. That as opposed to the current CF where if you have an A_type accessible by A and B_type accessible by B. If I have a file that needs to be accessed by both, I would like to set both types on it, but instead, I have to create an ad-hoc AB_type, assign that to the file and modify the definitions of the A and B domain to grant them access. As a side effect, if I update the programs associated with A or B, either my efforts get wiped out or they don't get the necessary other updates to their definitions. Lose all around.

As I think about it more, perhaps the entire security model is off.

Pop-ups are not a very good default answer for Linux. Unlike Windows, having a GUI at all is optional in Linux and needs to stay that way. Besides that, history has shown that the pop-ups in Windows just train users to click OK as quickly as possible without actually reading the message (or even remembering the pop-up happened).

It could make sense to have a monitor wrapper that can run a program and ask the questions either on the command line or the GUI.

The GDP is doing just fine as usual. If the people who actually did all the work got to see those gains, we might get somewhere.

So if another tsunami hits that (evacuated) area, does that mean we credit the meltdown for saving 20,000 lives?

It's easy enough to check. Surf to any public https secured site, and check the certificate's chain of trust. If the self-signed cert at the top of the chain is the school's cert, they've been pwned.

Exactly. The right answer is to fill the tank with a pressurized inert gas like nitrogen so that there's no O2 left for combustion, similar to what they're doing to the fuel tanks in modern jets.