This is the most insightful remark on
This is the most insightful remark on
24 supports fascism?
Of course, 24 doesn't suport fascism. Actually, I don't think that the producers know what facism is at all, judging from the story.
It's only an outrageus plot that wants to demonstrate that the USA has no problem in torturing and killing people who's innocence is not quite clear. Or, where it's known. But, there -- according to the series plot, the hero is the hero because he's not hindered by those pesky human rights. Let's kill those bastards!! Actually, 24 is the perfect serieis to demonstrate what's wrong with the current US society. That people think this series is cool is an abonimation. They should go to an hospital to be treated for mental illness.
24 is, clearly, a movie-series / Hollywood fiction, with no backing in the real world.
That you don't see the connection of the current revelations to your country's slow sliding into fascism is a sad singular report on the state of affairs. The rest of the world watches; the USA and other similar-minded terrorist states act and show their colors.
It's political and economical factors that are making it a problem still.
And now, the consequence? Do you want to imply that a "engineering-wise solved problem" is a done thing?
If yes, I have brigde to sell. Oh no, several bridges -- since nobody should be so stupid to believe that.
So, since you're hopefully not as stupid - tell me about your approaches to solve the "political and economical factors" which are the real life that we are living in. Without that, you're just blundering.
the Pentagon takes it seriously, can you get realer than that?
For xure: my vintners experience the same. They do not only take it serously, they report about actual climate changes in the last 20 years. Certain grapes get to be difficult, e.g., Rieslings in the South of Germany.
And, belive me, my vintners experience is more important than your Pentagon guys. I don't need an atom bomb every day, but I want to drink my wine...
This has nothing to do with Klein-style activism, but all with plain old hedonism -- that's what civilization is for: Champagne for everyone
We prefer monitoring checks that are on a business-relevant level. If a process runs or not -- that's what systemd is telling us -- is irrelevant for our level of monitring. It might be a first stage, but that should be obsoleted by proper monitoring conditions. We need monitoring checks that tell us if an account can be opened, if an order can be plaed. Monitoring needs to tell if the business is running. Technical terms like daemons have a rather minor place in this. The real test: can the customer do the things we want him to do.
No customer of us wants to know if our JBoss cluster is running. What they want to know if orders could be placed via the application that's running on our JBoss cluster. And it's our damned professional obligation to provide that information, and not hide behind the excuse "JBoss was not running".
Proper monitoring, as I think about it and as we practice it, is about business-relevant data. It's not about a daemon runnning on one system. It's about "how long does a customer wait to get a dialog served to order a system. Or, "how long does it take to deliver the promised system to the customer." So we create and change new systems, to see how long it takes. If it takes too long, we establish new instances to make that workflow go faster. That's, IMNSHO, is what cloud computing is about: atomatic attaching *and* detaching instances of standardized instances, that are never touched manually, to realize the perfornamce demand of our customer.
I don't demand cloud-like infrastructure recoginition in this discussion (though I'm most familiar with it). But standard virtualized data center environments already show the problems I'm talking about.
Don't get me wrong: I actually like systemd. My probem is that some of its proponents try to sell it for tasks that it has never been made for and will not deliver it. E.g., proper monitoring, a.k.a. business-relevant delivery of information about services
Thinking about it, your might have found a hole in the setup that I deliver to our clients. Folks might have setup daemon-process-based monitoring and left it at this. Grmmbl. Seems we have to detect this low-level monitoring, to escalate it to a proper monitoring in our infrastructure. Thanks for this insight.
Get the current login; from Usenix; there's a good article what monitoring is about. It's not about tools. It's about data that is collected by Nagios and its like, collected in systems like Ganglia, and used to manage and to plan services in an overall environment, not per system.
Specific tools are not relevant; that you *do* monitoring for your whole data center on a service level, not on a system's daemon/process level, is relevant.
Alternatively, somebody has to take the time to set-up exhaustive monitoring, including ALL the trivial services running on the servers, and some dummy has to watch it around the clock, and manually perform this extremely simple and menial task. Or else maybe you're the dummy who gets paged at 3AM to do a trivial service restart, due to some simple and transitory event.
That, from a 6-digit
If you don't have a setup system that establishs monitoring automatically and without manual intervention on all new systems; if you have manual supervision of basic monitoring events; if you don't have built-in fail-over strategies -- well, good luck in doing your job. FWIW, what you're doing is not state of the art. If you're responsible for it or if you can influence its architecture, you should work hard to improve the state of your affairs.
The 80s have gone, where we could hand-held every single system we had to manage. These lucky times are over. Thinking about it, they weren't so lucky at all. Porting X10 just to have a graphical desktop was no fun, even though I thought so at that time. Young and foolish and so...
The assignment today for most people in admin area is to handle 100s to 1.000s of systems. One needs to establish proper means to do so; and manual work ain't it. (You won't be in the situation to handle 10,000s to 100,000s or even millions of systems; otherwise you wouldn't have posted the comment cited above.)
The information does not belong to the aggregator OR to the person the information is about. The information belongs to the content creator (who sometimes has a copyright on that information as well).
If that's the case in the US, that's an important distinction between the USA and Europe: Personal information belongs to a person, not to any content creator. So-called content creators are not allowed to publish information about me that I haven't approved. Content aggregators like search engines are not allowed to spread the work further.
An exception is made for "persons of public interest". This usually means politicians or movie stars who earn their money with public engagements. It does not mean publication of any minor breach of the law, or similar information.
And yes, this applies to the physical publication world as well. 100,000s of books have been called back, causing much more lost money than in Internet parlance, because this law hasn't been respected in the first place.
Btw, and it ain't so that Google has problems or outrageous costs associated with fulfilling this court's request. They have the infrastructure already in place, to cope with the link takedown demands of RIAA et.al.
And no, there is no formal definition what is a person or action of public interest. This will be decided by courts on a case-by-case decision. As it should be, humans should judge, not algorithms.
In my world, Uncle Sam has no business, but resumes to collect all meta-data of any communication that I do, and for some states even all communication, just because he can. He's called upon it, but the answer is clear: I'll continue to do it because I can. I'm the dominant military power on Earth, I don't have to care for international rights, for human dignity, for justice. Uncle Sam tells me that he's the imperial power left on Earth that can decide who's allowed to live and to die without any court that may intervene.
> especially if your business is selling illegal weapons, murder, kidnapping, etc.
Sorry, but that's not my business. I'm just a normal non-US person supervised by the NSA, as all of us non-US folks are.
Wait, you mean that your civil rights are only for US citizens? They don't belong to us?
There was a time when the U.S.A was looked upon as the guiding light. I'm old enough to remember it. Guys, you destroyed that. You turtore, you kill hundreds of thousands of innocents -- much more than al-quaida ever did, you're the 800 pounds bully on the international political circuit, you won't coorperate, you are the scam on Earth.
> [Uncle Sam] is pretty clear that he DOES have business
You might think so. But I sincerly hope that your Tea Party will take over policital power in the US. It will be a few harsh years for us, world-wide, but they will destroy you better than any foe could do. Then we will be able to continue to build the world society that you don't want to be part of. Sigh, your ancestors lend us the ideas, but you abandoned them.
The 2nd paragraph of COPYING reads:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Since it is well known fact that Linux is GPLv2 only, what's your intent in denying that? Trolling?
You don't seem to get it. Having rights in the legal system is not reserved for über hackers. It's there for everyone, not even for, but especially for douchebags like Mitnick. That they put him in solitary confinement, him being not a good hacker at all, is the prime example of un-ethical behavior of authorities in the US judical system. (But then, this is a barbaric system with death sentences. So it's part of the system, FWIW.)
Not that this is really different in other parts of the world, as we can read in TFA.
When my knees or hips eventually wear out, they give me new ones and bam, I magically get to walk for another 20-30 years.
If you will be in for this, especially if it concerns your knees; you will then be haunted by that comment.
Because, you will, most probably, not walk without pain for another 20-30 years.
Sincercely yours, probably being a few decades older than you.
The school has placed a temporary ban on play at recess or lunch that involves physical contact between kindergarten students. This is in response to a number of injuries that have happened with this particular class.
And they couldn't handle these incidents in a different manner? For example, without punishing the whole group for the behavior of a few? Without installing the knowledge "bullies win" in the kids' minds?
You should better go, and select a different schools for your kids. These so-called teachers are obviously unprofessional and should be avoided. (I'm a pedagogue, FWIW. This is a textbook example how teachers should *not* handle incidents with students. Especially not at kindergarten age where social interactions are to be learned.)