If I'm reading that right, Oracle clams that:
Oracle provides updated software versions for a yearly fee.
Defendants are unlawfully distributing the updated versions to people who haven't paid the fee.

If I'm reading that right, Oracle is being slightly non-generous by having annual payments to get updates. That's understandable, though, it costs them money to keep making new updates.

I see nothing in TFA about Oracle objecting to services the defendants provide, just and objection to them distributing new updates that haven't been paid for. So the headline is a load of bull, right?

Imagine what terrorists could do with a knife!
Hint - 9/11

Meanwhile, the government IS, admittedly, tracking of your phone calls and emails. Have you called your Congressman yet? Posted on their Facebook page?

> I have idea what the decoding capability is like ...
> it could possibly be very limited

Okay, you know nothing about it. I'm with you so far.

> misleading ... useless paper weight for everything but netflicks and youtube. This is just google pushing verticle integration.

And you go ahead and call it crap, and accuse them of false advertising (fraud).

Let me guess - you vote democrat.

That's a great solution, and one that actually answers the OP's question, assuming he can do a little shell scripting. I spent YEARS designing a great enterprise grade backup solution using LVM. I'm the maintainer of Linux::LVM, but I hadn't heard of lvmsync before. I'm sure I'll use it sometime.

The agency where I work is all Microsoft, all the time. They use Active Directory for everything. After I had been working there a year, security did a scan of the network and found out I was running Linux. I ran Linux for a year in that environment and had no trouble. My Linux desktop played just fine with their AD forest. LibreOffice had no trouble with any of the Microsoft Office documents I needed to handle. I've heard that some version of LibreOffice had some trouble with some feature as implemented by some version of MS Office. I saw no problems, though.

I did get in trouble for running an unauthorized OS. Now I'm still at a command line, but on a Mac when I need to be connected to the office network. Mac is certified Unix.

p.s remember that whatever power you allow Obama to have, the next president will also have. That may Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin. How much control do you want Palin or J Bush to have?

* I sure hope Palin never gets elected to anything else, but this country has already elected an actor as president, and Honey Boo Boo sure is popular. Honey Boo Boo for president?

>. . You're right, goverment control does result in government control. The key is to have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.

Let me know when that happens, when a government is responsive to the will of the people for more than ten years. Then, we can talk about putting that government in control details of our lives.

>The alternative you propose is one where the voice of the people is only as loud as the size of their wallet. That's more freedom if you have a big wallet, less freedom if you have a small wallet.

Not quite. You propose taking the freedom from the people and giving it to the government, then hoping that the government gives it back. THAT results in "only those who control the government have fredom". See communist Russia and China for examples. I propose NOT giving all the control to the government at all, but leaving people's choices to each of the people. Imagine if the Koch brothers controlled a government that was actually limited to the enumerated powers. The elite would control the post office and a few other things. Big deal.

    That's a hell of a lot better than having them control what health care I'm allowed, based on my political beliefs. The single payer health care bill you wanted had the IRS running it - the same agency that systematically punished people who disagreed with the president. That doesn't look like freedom to me.

>. noting that the socialist regimes that have failed have been authoritarian

Indeed when the government controls people's money (socialism), eventually the government controls people's lives (authoritarian).

That fact is so obviously true it's almost a tautology. If you are itellectualy honest, you will recognize that obvious fact and work from there towards an alternate means of reaching your goal.
If you're a fool, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that government control doesn't result in government control.

Junk mail it has almost able to stay afloat at 32 cents. The FedEx and UPS model has them charge more, not deliver junk mail, and not go broke. That also works. The proof is it FedEx is doing it.

one big difference is under the $0.32 model they're promising employees pay that they aren't able to pay (the pensions). Charging more, like FedEx, they would be able to fund the pensions and not be delivering junk mail.

>. How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?

That works for math, some extent, because you can have objective, irrefutable proof. When someone says to me "you're being selfish", I can ALWAYS refute that and come up with some justification, no matter how right they are. The wise thing for me to do is to pause and ask "do they perhaps have a valid point?". "Am I indeed being selfish in some way?" Most of the time, they are at least half right, and my excuses don't change that fact.

The second half of your post is a great example. No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation. By the same token, no matter what success socialist regimes may have, I can refute your conclusion by pointing to their many failures. If I were wiser, I'd instead look to see what I can learn from your point of view. I might say "though your method of achieving the goal has always failed, perhaps the goal itself is worth pursuing". Indeed, that's often the case - leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked". Better that they look at where each other have a good point they are making. Putting their viewpoints together, you get "let's dream big dreams, then figure out how to actually accomplish some of them".

Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense. Then we can learn from each other and work together to implement your dreamy ideals in a way that actually works in the real world.

The estimates would be reasonable for a private datacenter of that size. This is the federal government. The NSA is evil, but it's an evil GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

    On average, it takes 60 months, five years, from the time the govt orders a computer until it's installed. So this will be enterprise storage from 2008. Enterprise, not consumer. Figure SCSI drives of about 200 GB, not 3TB SATA.

Of course it'd government efficiency in all aspects, so figure 10% of the floor space is used for server racks, etc.

The NSA is absolutely violating the fourth amendment and what they all doing is inexcusable. How well are they doing it? Not well enough to notice when someone is taking their databases home, uploading them to several sites, and emailing all their confidential documents to journalists.

For more details. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

The claim of setting aside funds for pensions 75 years out isn't true. It's a rumor started for political purposes, by conflating two separate things.

USPS is required start investing money to be used to pay pensions for current employees. The main reason for that is that 25 years from now their revenue might be half of what it is today. So this year, they need to start investing to pay the pensions of people who are delivering mail this year. That's one mandate.

Here's the other. Suppose they have a current employee who is 20 years old. That employee will be colllecting a pension 60 years from now based on the work he does today. USPS is required to ESTIMATE, NOT PAY, how much they expect to owe todays's workers, for today's work, that they won't actually pay for up to 75 years. That's just common sense. If I make a promise today saying "when you're retired I'll pay your bills", I should estimate how much that promise is likely to cost me.

> I honestly wonder if I am witnessing the decline of a once might country.

50% of Americans think so. All of the things that made the country great are being thrown out by people who want to improve things, but don't understand "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

Either they they don't understand about about throwing out the baby, or they think it's always sucked and it would be best to trade our ways of doing things for any random untried idea. "I've never been proud of my country" Obama doesn't think America ever was great, so he doesn't mind tossing out everything we think made America great.

That's true, up to a certain price. Above that price, it will be profitable. FedEx operates at that higher price point. At some point, the junk mail senders would stop using the post office. At that point, most people would get mail maybe twice a week. With 1/3rd as many stops to make, costs decrease dramatically.