Charitable donations aren't the only way of creating value in the world.

I'm probably wasting my time here as you're posting AC, and it's certainly offtopic, but I feel compelled to respond to this. What you've posted is a perfect example of rejecting a message you would otherwise hold in esteem because you have a personal problem with the core philosophy of the messenger, followed by substitution of a message with that is quite nearly functionally equivalent, yet represents the work of someone you happen to like more.

If anything, I would characterize your behavior as irrational, and thus amusingly at odds with both your reference to meds and the point of both quotes. The end result, at least to my perception, is apparent manifestation of quite an elitist attitude. Are you perchance employed in academia?

That doesn't seem to make any sense. The whole point of multiple DNS servers is to have them distributed across separate hosts and preferably separate networks, but putting them on exclusive hardware doesn't provide any gain unless you're handling a ridiculous number of queries per second (in which case there's no point to virtualizing the servers in first place). That is, unless you actually meant to say you make sure the second sentence applies, instead of potentially saying no other VMs run on hosts that happen to host your DNS servers.

I use KVM on Debian hosts for all my production stuff, but yeah, my first thought was "those servers are all virtualized now."

You seem insecure. It may surprise you that I don't really care whether you served or not, nor do I consider the fact that I did to be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things. If we're honest, neither of us really matter all that much in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, you seem to be demonstrating an oft-seen reaction to exposure to people who affirm prior service in the context of conversations like these, and I'd guess it's probably based on insecurity stemming from something else in your life. That's too bad, but it is your problem, not mine.

Getting back to the topic of the story, the statement that there was a fuck-up is redundant. That failures occurred is obvious, but the specific nature of those failures and their dependencies are something that neither of us are direct parties to. One of us simply has more subject matter experience here, and is better qualified to point out ignorant and puffed-up speculation on the part of others. Really, the core problem remains that you simply have no basis of experience to speak from. In other words, you don't know what you don't know. That's perfectly okay as long as you can admit it and work forward from there. You don't seem prepared to do that, though.

It doesn't really matter here, but I can't help but note in closing my suspicion that you also wouldn't be prepared to use your closing line in person. Thus, it seems one of us is indeed interested in attempting to prove his manhood, but it isn't me. Have a great day!

You're absolutely wrong. Please look up some actual caselaw before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance. I'd invest 15 minutes of my life doing this for you, since you're apparently incapable of doing it for yourself or you presumably would have already done so, but at this point it seems I'm wasting more of my life than is justified by even replying to your post. HAND.

The statement itself isn't what's legally binding. Unless explicilty stated otherwise via assignment to the public domain, copyright protection for produced works (such as photographs) is automatic in the United States. As for the rest, you're simply being pedantic, and you got upset when you were called on it.

A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.

This is one of the things I love most about the Internet. Once the bytes are transmitted and hit storage mediums frequented by a substantial number of souls, the bytes become quasi-immortal. I'll try to remember to perform a search for your post using whatever über (or uber for this venue, c'mon /. it's 2012, let's get with the Unicode program) engine is all the rage ten years from now. In the meantime, thank you for the reminder, and have a great day.

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. In general, I agree with your line of thought. My original post was really more intended to illustrate the fact that the GP almost certainly had no operational experience, proper education, or firsthand knowledge of the events to base his statement on. Someone will indeed be found at fault, and it may turn out (as so many things do) to be a cumulative effect of errors on both vessels. Thanks again for the reply.

Actually been here since 2004. Second account, dumbfuck.

Thank you for your service. I'd like to remind you that you aren't privy to comms, misleading comms, or lack of expected comms during this exercise, and would encourage you to consider alternate scenarios. In other words, sometimes it takes two to tango.

You are privy to neither the objectives of nor the operational timeline of the exercise. In other words, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Let me be perfectly clear: your first mistake was attempting to speak with authority on a topic you have absolutely no fucking knowledge of, and your second mistake was attempting to refute the public assertion of your ignorance with a hollow demand for "insight" that clearly cannot be provided in accordance with universally understood principles of certain oaths involving clearances. Put even more simply, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about, and things are so much more interesting than you might imagine. Perhaps you should have had the fucking nuts required to wear a uniform. Sadly, you didn't. So instead, try to have a nice day, and perhaps think about giving a bit more thought to thinking before you speak.

Please share your deep insights into the particulars of this event, and don't forget to include your qualifications for speaking on the topic. I've served on a submarine. Have you?

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?