4564 posts • joined 31 May 2010
The clustered NFS server is adequate, assuming you're a big fan of old school JBOD-style systems. Mind you, if that's the route you prefer, then Solaris or Nexenta are just fine, too.
As for "clustering various services" beyond just NFS, I have to say that my experiences plainly differ. While such things are "possible" in Windows - and, let's be blunt, they're a hell of a lot more friendly under Server 2012+ than anything that went before - Red Hat Cluster Service still walks all over Windows. (If you say "n lines of PowerShell", I shall strike you. Back into your box, marketdroid.)
Frankly, we enter a world of "needs assessment" here. What are you trying to achieve with the cluster? Are you simply trying to achieve a 2-node RAIN? Because if that's all you're after Windows Clustering is one of the least friendly ways to share files on the planet. It certainly doesn't come cheap. The minimum buy in is right up there with enterprise players...and I don't have to reboot them as often.
Are you trying to achieve namespace coherance? I trust Datacore's SanSymphony V a fuck of a lot more than lashing together Windows systems that get really cranky if the other nodes aren't identical in performance. Datacore's stuff can take storage from any number of different vendors, tier the storage, provide N+X RAIN across storage from multiple vendors, do sync or async WAN replication (latency dependent) and present the whole kit and caboodle as a single unified storage space.
Are you trying to create centralized storage for virtual machines? I would trust damned near anything more than Storage Spaces right now, and the JBODtastic storage-from-the-stone-tablet days preferred by Windows for it's clustering. Now, admittedly, there are some great enterprise storage clusters that are engineered from the ground up to take advantage of this by basically creating a two-node system-in-a-can (Supermicro's is a great example), but I'd still prefer a Tintri cluster, or a VMAX.
And what about the future? We're heading into scale-out storage, and scale-out isn't quite what Windows does. Oh, you can try to use Windows like a poor man's Datacore, pointing all the storage at your Windows instance and lashing it together with Storage Spaces, but you don't get half the functionality...and fewer big builds have been through that scale-out minefield than I'd like.
The future of VM storage is server SANs, full stop. File and Object storage will either be served by visualized file servers running on top of that, or - far more likely - by proper decentralized object stores like Caringo, with an NFS or CIFS shim.
Now, Caringo...there's the way to store a gazillion piddly files. If you need CIFS and NFS then it can do that...but all your next-gen apps can be properly coded to object storage and we can kick RAID to the curb. Thank $deity. Unlike other Object stores, Caringo doesn't have a single-point-of-failure name node, because it stores the metadata with the object. This allows for quick failover, recovery of partial drives, and the ability to set various classes of objects at different RAIN rates within the cluster. It seems to eat new nodes with a minimum of fuss and muss and retires old ones in the same manner.
So when I look at Windows Server I see a company that's doing yesterday adequately. But I can't say as I'd design tomorrow's datacenters on that technology. If it's all you know, it will get you where you need to go...for a price. A substantial price, and one that's only going to go upwards. Think "those who are still using Mainframes."
For the future, my VM storage will be server SANs, and my file/object storage will be HA NASes (low end) and Caringo-like object stores for the midmarket and above.
TL;DR It isn't that Windows can't do the job. It's that there are alternatives out there which are as reliable or more, as cheap or more, and which scale better with greater ease of use and less management overhead. I can use Windows, but I just don't have the time, money or patience to dick around with it any more*.
*At the low end, Windows is just To Damned Expensive. At the midsize, I just keep running up against it's limitations. 10M files brings the server to it's knees and cuts IOPS in half because NTFS is shit? Fuck. ReFS gets me to 40M files per volume. Woo. I'm dealing with a billion files with organizations that have 50 users and that's not going down.
And what about server SANs? They changed the game in a big way and Microsoft is *crickets* on the subject. I can't keep scaling classical bottlenecked centralized storage when I'm dealing with high-IOPS demand compute nodes whose capacity seems to grow asymmetrically of cost decreases to centralized storage.
Storage is evolving at break-neck pace, and there are great offerings out there now which have had massive deployments for 5 and even 10 years. We're not talking about greenhorn startups; the real changes are now enterprise ready. If I hitch my horse to the Microsoft wagon, I'm going to get left behind by all these kids in their newfangled horseless carriages.
Cloud first, mobile first, customer last. Microsoft's made it's development priorities clear, and they simply aren't aligned with those of us who want to run our own infrastructure.
If you plan to move your stuff into Azure, buy Microsoft's on-prem stuff. If you don't, they buy your infrastructure from quite literally anyone else. It's as simple as that.
Just no. Some things are not okay.
Re: bleeding edge research ?
"instant training for pilots, tank drivers, special forces and ship captains."
Pilots have already been replaced by autonomous machines. Tank drivers can be easily replaced by any of a dozen commercial driverless techs. What do you need with special forces when you have UCAVs and what do you need with ship captains when all the ships do is launch drones?
Robots fight. Humans in military are useful primarily for building and helping places recover from natural disasters. The military doesn't need soldiers anymore...it needs sappers.
Re: Toshiba MQ01ABB200: 2TB 2.5"
Re: almost the biggest
It's sexy looking. Of course, to afford one you have to grind up a utopia's worth of unicorns and virgins then lay it all out in a line for your HP sales rep to snort.
Well, the tourist trap towns are pretty damned nice. There's rather a lot to like there, in fact. Have you never been to Cuba?
Re: Methane exists through the Universe !
Wow. You're completely bugshit bonkers. Terrifying.
Mobile first, cloud first
Customer last, staff last.
MOBILE FIRST, CLOUD FIRST
Except that we're all thought criminals. Also, your/you're. FFS.
Re: RHEL's choices determine CentOS
"@Trevor_Troll, you barely qualify to be read in Opie's Twitter-Voice."
Oh? How so? I pointed out that you could rather easily get Mate set up on CentOS 7, and it shouldn't break your distro to do so. That's trolling?
I said nothing about systemd. While I happen to agree with most - but not quite all - of the gripes on boycott systemd, I just don't have enough experience with systemd to really comment about how miserable it is (or not) quite yet. So I didn't.
I didn't recommend using extra repositories on servers - servers shouldn't have GUIs, this is Linux - but see no issue with their use on desktops. Linux desktop users are generally more technically competent than Windows users...or they're administered by competent people and locked way the hell down. So why wouldn't you allow the use of extra repositories that would make the desktop experience more usable?
How is any of that trolling, hmm? Or is your hatred for change so overwhelmingly powerful that if someone says anything good about a distro that you've decided is bad you must lash out at them?
Take your religion, and your spite and go decompile your own personality matrix, mmmkay?
Re: RHEL's choices determine CentOS
"my understanding of EPEL is maybe MATE 1.8 gets upgraded to MATE 1.15 or something in a year or two with different configs &c = more work."
With the exception of a sendmail LDAP issue that was part of the core OS, I haven't had those kinds of repo issues with core, EPEL or RPMFusion in over 6 years. I think that sort of crap is behind the big repos now.
Re: RHEL's choices determine CentOS
Are additional repos against your religion?
Re: RHEL's choices determine CentOS
IIRC, EL7 supports MATE. So you aren't forced to use Gnome 3.
CentOS7 is out!
I'm so happy! Absolutely made my week.
SPACE HACKERS. There are only a handful of people in the world who have earned that title. These folks got called it in print. That's a badge of honour well earned.
A smile on my face, hard to do of late. For the lads --->
Re: What's to look forward to?
"Office 2013 is far more capable than older Office versions and the interface is cleaner too and it supports open standards unlike the older proprietary only versions."
Office 2003 still does everything I want. I have yet to find a single feature in the later versions that I personally or any of my clients give a damn about. Office 2013 has a rubbish interface design by lobotomised slugs and fawned over only by insects with compound eyes. Open standards should always have been a part of support for every version.
Also: 2003 never crashed even remotely as much as 2013 does. I hate the damned thing, and hope it gets consigned to a vista-like oblivion very, very soon.
Re: What's to look forward to?
I liked Microsoft in the past. Once, I was one of their most ardent supporters. There are still many things I like about the technology Microsoft provides, and I respect a great many of the people that work there.
That said, on balance, I feel the star has faded. They have not kept the faith with their customers and there is no reason to trust them about anything.
Once, Microsoft was a company I wouldn't have hesitated to by my business and that of my clients on. Today, I use them only when no viable alternative exists. It's a shame, too...because in many areas Microsoft has some of the best technologies on the planet. Ah, well...
Re: The RDT driver is no replacement for Infiniband
You know, this could be why I have so much luck with server SANs. I stopped using anything but 10GbE ages ago. You can get 24 ports of 10GbE for $5K from Netgear now. There's just no excuse.
Depends on what you define as "a toy", I suppose. "Able to handle 125 VDI instances per node without complaint" seems reasonable to me. Alternately "200+VMs across 4 nodes that run a mix of workloads ranging from Exchange to SQL to VDI to image render engines" seems not toy-like to me.
Now, to be perfectly honest, I haven't run Maxta against those controllers. Maybe Maxta would run like a dog on them too. I do know that I don't need hardware controllers to run Maxta, and it does a damned fine job using AHCI SATA 7200 rpm spindles + SSDs. It handles all the I/O I want to throw at it on a per-node basis right up to the point that I run out of RAM.
Now, it's obviously an open question how each of these will behave when we start talking about setups that run $25K+ per node just for the hardware. I can't answer that. But I do know that Maxta runs real-world production workloads just fine on some rather weedy hardware using configs that VMware officially pooh-poohs for their own offering.
It's all about what you're optimizing for. Are you optimizing for IOmeter and SPC-2 benchmarks, or for workloads that are ridiculously latency sensitive that only 0.000002% of the world actually employ? Or are you optimizing for the kinds of workloads (and disk/CPU/RAM balances) utilized by 80% of the world's businesses?
So yeah, some of this shouldn't have made it onto the HCL...but there are things that got pulled from the HCL (or never made it on) that also raise huge questions about what the merry hob VSAN is doing that it can't get workable performance out of the same hardware that is used by Nutanix (certain LSI controllers), or Maxta (AHCI).
It makes me ask uncomfortable questions. Like "is the only thing that VSAN has to offer a series of high benchmarks, and even then only when used on the absolute best of the best hardware"? How does VSAN work with the kinds of hardware normal people and mundane businesses can actually afford, or already have to hand?
If asking those questions, instead of blindly lapping up marketing tripe and praising a solution that is twice as expensive as others competing offerings is "not understanding storage basis" I'm remarkably cool with that.
"How many IOPS do you need" is just as important a question as "how many IOPS can this solution deliver." And what's really of interest is the lovely question "why can X deliver Y IOPS on Z hardware, but W cannot?"
And, quite frankly, I don't care who gets upset when I ask those questions.
What I fail to understand is why VSAN is so sensitive. Maxta runs like greased lightning on even marginal hardware.
I'm unsure why US.gov would care? I thought they used Amazon-sourced govclouds now...
Re: It cpould be
Well, I'd have told that waste of carbon that not only does a predilection towards profanity demonstrates an increased vocabulary due to acceptance of words he simply bans, but the ability to improvise epithets indicates a creative mind that is capable of adapting to the evolution of the language. Thus your vocabulary will always be broader, as it is more dynamic than that of our friend the trogloditic cockferret.
This never would have happened if they'd used proper enterprise storage. Trusting in these newfangled startups just puts customers at risk! That's what I don't use cloud computing.
VMware doesn't have to make the hardware, just rebadge Supermicro nodes.
You're absolutely, 100% right. I got StorSimple and StoreVirtual mixed up. Sorry, I've been working with startups all day that are building StorSimple competitors and the dang thing stuck in my mind.
Why the heck does everyone have to name everything so bloody similar? Maybe we should start naming the next generation of products in Klingon, I think we're running out of horrible manglings of English.
From the article: "the tidbit that is most likely at the core of MARVIN – VSAN – is the political equivalent of a live wire."
So yes, confusing. And highly, highly political, and you sir have struck to the heart of it. Also remember that EMC has ScaleIO, and Cisco is buying up array vendors. Add in FlexPod, and the fact that other converged competitors (Nutanix, SimpliVity, Maxta, etc) all run on VMware (as at least one of the options) and you get a glimpse of the politics.
Now go beyond storage. Pivotal makes what amounts to wickedawesome orchestration software. In some senses that competes directly with VMware's own offerings in the area. And EMC? Where are they? They can't sell "just storage" for more than another 5-10 years, so they have to have strategic moves beyond the creation of the EMC federation.
EMC federation companies cooperate and compete, even as they own bits of eachother. Nutanix, SimpliVity, Maxta and so forth are official partners of EMC federation companies, as well as vicious competitors.
Dell has launched a tight tie-up with Nutanix, but is also "100% committed to VSAN". Supermicro makes Nutanix's hardware, which Dell will be selling for several months until they get their own nodes done, at which point Nutanix will still sell Supermicro-sourced nodes. Meanwhile, Supermicro looks to be at the core of MARVIN, and has several "VSAN ready nodes" on the VSAN list, as do Dell, HP and so forth.
And what about HP? They have StorSimple and Lefthand and are trying to make a go of all sorts of things. They sell VSAN nodes and VMware, but also crank out 3PAR and are a leading force behind Openstack. They are looking to become a major cloud provider via Openstack.
"Complicated" doesn't even begin to cover it. These companies are big enough to be competing internally. When you start to try to pick out the complex interrelationships even amongst members of allied companies like the EMC federation it gets hard. Try to look at alliances of convenience like VCE and you'll go mad.
Wheeee...this is what I do for a living now! (It's still better than troubleshooting Xerox printers.)
"Oh, my day-job is much more enjoyable.
It's the abject poverty for the other 15 hours a day that's stressful!"
Rule of acquisition number 125: You can't make a deal if you're dead.
The stress of the day job damned near killed me. Writing is a cathartic release.
Writing doesn't pay nearly as well as systems administration. From experience, however, there's less stress sin the writing. I'll take navigating PRs over troubleshooting printers any day of the week.
Things which are ass are bad. Sorry, it's the 90s slang that got bred into me. You'll just have to cope.
As to your magical woo-woo crystals sending you a positive vibe about Windows 9...what proof you have? Vista/7 are ages behind us. The brass involved all got shuffled or canned. "Microsoft" isn't a person, it's people, and there's no reason to believe any previous patterns will hold.
Microsoft has been getting more self-insulated and subject to corporate hubris, not less. That says to me that the chances of them "not getting it" for Windows 9 are rather high.
Re: History repeating
Windows 7 was accepted because it was less ass than Vista.
Windows 8 has "one OS' worth of experience" over Windows 7 and it is significantly more ass than either 7 or Vista.
There is no reason to expect Microsoft will "get it right" with Windows 9. They either will, or they won't. But their corporate hubris is powerful, and it may crowd out the sort of thinking required to make an OS that will be widely accepted. Only time will tell.
Suffice it to say that you're a better person than I.
Re: Potty Trouble is
The Sept 11 attacks don't even count as a skirmish. A couple thousand people died. Minor infrastructure damage. The difference between that and a nuke is something you are obviously completely incapable of comprehending.
Yes, the Sept 11th attacks didn't catalyze the west to retribution, because they weren't that big a fucking deal. Americans were shocked out of their belief that their vaunted exceptionalism protected them from the consequences of their own foreign policy hitting them on their soil. That's unfortunate - and it really sucks for the families of those killed - but it is not even remotely, not even within several orders of magnitude - close to a nuclear attack.
America got pushed into the dirt by the nerd they were busy bullying. The rest of the world pretty much said "saw that coming" and went on their merry. American then killed one million people in Iraq in retribution - a nation that had nothing at all to do with the Sept 11 attacks - and got bogged downing in Afghanistan getting it's ass handed to it by a bunch of cave-dwelling lunatics. (To be fair, we ALL got our asses handed to us in Afghanistan, including Canada. Mind you, at least some of our war dead are because the Americans decided to bomb us.)
When America actually identified the people responsible - the whackos in Afghanistan - for Sept 11th, her allies rallied to her side and we marched on the people responsible. We did it according to the rules of war because the act in question - the Sept 11th incident - did not in any way warrant an abrogation of the various treaties that determine those rules of war. Put simple: Sept 11th wasn't a big enough deal to warrant tearing down hundreds of years of international agreements about conduct during a war. The threat was not big enough.
Nuke a city, and that changes. In an instant the threat moves into the realm of "absolutely must be terminated at all costs." With a nuclear attack - and only an attack of that scale - would western nations be willing to switch from "defensive aggression" to "conquer with an eye to eradication."
If you cannot see the difference between the two levels of incident, there is something very wrong with you.
Re: Potty Trouble is
How do you get it 50 miles up without an AEGIS cruiser picking it off?
Re: Meanwhile, elsewhere .... and in Fabless Labs with Comfy Slabs and Inviting Beds
"The bottom line, T_P, is that the masses don’t get to decide, but are fed and watered and sprinkled with the fairy dust that is called democracy and fairly elected representation, to deliver to them the illusion and delusion that they do. "
You're at least partly right, alien man. But the key to understanding here isn't that the illuminati are running the world, or that each nation is a dictatorship. It's far simpler - and more terrifying - than that.
The truth of the matter is: noone's in charge. That's sort of the point. Yes, the masses are malleable; anyone who knows a damned thing about group dynamics knows just how vulnerable we are to psychological manipulation, even when we know we're being played.
This is offset to some extent by genetic factors: we're not all equally vulnerable, and some of us are more genetically inclined towards risk aversion and hatred of change. It's also offset to some extent because there are multiple parties all pulling us in various different directions, so in some small ways the various powermongers cancel eachother out.
There's also the part where the real power is exercised not by the elected official, but by the civil servant, the appointed judge and other elements of the bureaucracy that we don't directly select.
Despite all that, we do select our leaders, and our leaders ultimately select the bureaucracy. If - and I realise the unlikeliness of this - we could all come together and elect a completely new group of politicians with a mandate to clean house we could in fact force radical change. Not bloody likely, but the possibility exists. If something truly horrible were to happen we may just exercise that option.
What are the alternatives? Abject submission? At least the illusion of control over our government gives some hope that if someone were to seize the reigns outright we might fight back.
If we simply roll over and let a corporatocracy take over, or a dictator, or even an insane machine...we lose the illusion, and with it, hope.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a worth with hope than without. Even if that hope is ultimately an illusion.
But me, I don't buy the illuminati theory. The more time I spend with people who are worth millions and billions of dollars the more I realise that most of them have outrageous egos. They won't work together. Not to rule us, not for any reason. They could - the technology and the science exist to allow the well resourced to dominate us utterly - but their own raw ambition and fractious nature will keep them fighting eachother instead of coalescing into the super secret boogyman of peasant-squishing doom.
Unless, of course, that's just what they want us to believe... :)
Re: Paul Crawford Cryptome
Okay TeeCee, who is qualified to lead us as a benevolent dictator? McCarthy? Bush the lesser? Gandhi? Kofi Annan? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Tony Abbot? What about Matt Bryant? You? Personally, I vote Elon Musk.
How are we to decide upon who's magnanimity we are to rest our future? In whose hands do we balance between liberty and security if not those of the people who must live with the consequences?
Re: Erm, no
I'd say "how the state uses dragnet surveillance to monitor everyone, everywhere and ultimately is allowing entire nations to sleepwalk into McCarty's wet dream of suppressing dissent almost before it happens" is both something that is important forever and must be published. Not only is it relevant today, but our descendants will need to know exactly how the fuck we let it get to this point, why we let the coming dark era of state terror (in the name of "protection") ever happen, and how they can prevent that from ever happening again.
We study the Nazi rise to power for a reason: this cannot be allowed to happen again. Our descendants will study the mistakes we are making today for the exact same reason.
Re: Potty Trouble is
Absolutely correct, but the ability to stuff up O2's network is not on the same scale as a nuclear attack, and you fucking know it.
Worst case scenario, a few people die because they can't reach 911 and a small hit to the economy as corporate chaos reigns for a few hours. That's not even on the same level of risk or threat as millions dead and tens of millions more dying horribly and overwhelming the medical systems of entire nations.
I am entirely willing to risk some spotty teenager stuffing up the phone network in order to know what my government is up to. Quite frankly, I think someone has to stuff up the phone network from time to time so that we don't get complacent about technological security, and pay the coppers to protect critical infrastructure. (See: asshats attaching SCADA systems on the interbutts without UTMs in the middle.)
Liberty isn't an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of security.
There is, of course, a balance. We shouldn't make fissionable material available to anyone who asks. We shouldn't be selling strychnine or TNT to those who don't have a damned good reason to use it, and preferably licensing and safety training. Guns should require licensing and safety training to acquire and guns that have no purpose other than war (such as full auto rifles, rocket launchers, etc) absolutely shouldn't be allowed in the hands of civilians. (Or even Police!)
It is a question of risk management. Public safety is important, at a large enough level. By the same token, civil liberties are not "mere conveniences," but of fundamental importance. That means we must find a balance.
Absolute security is impossible. So is absolute liberty. So we must take a pragmatic approach to finding the balance. Restricting the availability of fissionable material is not a major restriction on liberty: it's dangerous even to those who know what they are doing, and there are very few legitimate uses for such material in the civilian sphere. By restricting the availability of fissionable material we gain a huge amount of security, and we do so by giving up virtually nothing.
This story changes dramatically when we talk about government surveillance. Knowing that you are watched at all times is a massive psychological burden. It absolutely changes what you are willing to say or do. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of history lives in fear because we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those in power do not tolerate dissent.
So allowing our government to surveil us - and more horribly, allowing them to do so utilizing unknown methods at unknown times, with unknown capabilities - places the entire citizenry on the defensive against their own government, even if we aren't rounding up jews in the streets quite yet. It becomes an exercise in terror by the state when suddenly those who are rounded up using these secretive powers are tried in secret courts and given unknown sentences, especially when combined with laws that allow the police to pick up anyone they want and detain them without arrest (or the right to call family/employer/etc) for 30 day. Or 90 days. Or more!
The "security" purchased here is minimal, but the loss of liberty is profound. In the name of "protecting" us, the government has created an environment in which the only thing that prevents them from rounding up every political dissenter and "dissapearing" them is the magnanimity of those currently in power.
And those currently in power have absolutely no moral qualms about sending UAVs to kill people. By the thousands, if necessary. Death by robot without trial, a judgement made at the executive level, in secret. The claim is that they are killing to protect us, but there's no way to be sure. It is one more example of "the citizenry are allowed to exist and go about their lives only because the state chooses to allow them to."
Do you not understand the difference? One thing - restricting access to fissionable materials - is clearly a very minor loss of liberty for a very clear security benefit. The other amount to the use of secrecy and murder-without-trial by the state to generate terror amongst the citizenry in order to keep them in line out of fear. That is the exact opposite of liberty.
And Obama is one of the good guys.
If McCarthy or Hoover were alive today with the sort of power now held by the American government that society - all our societies - would be much, much darker.
So who's next? Every 2 years congress shuffles. Every 4 years the executive does. If we give up the liberty of "knowing what the hell our government is up to, why it is up to that and how it is accomplishing that" then we are handing a cowed and defeated citizenry to the next group of power hungry narcissists that happen to buy their way into the beltway.
What would you call an Islamic nation with that kind of control over it's people?
Now, imagine that the next president - and most of the next Congress - were ultra-right-wing fundamentalist Christians. How is that any different?
We probably shouldn't tell the people the exact model number and firmware of the devices used by the NSA to scan the stream for keywords. We probably shouldn't tell the citizenry the details of how the FBI pull up phone records at a moment's notice.
We absolutely should tell the people that it is being done, why, and with a general idea of how. That way the people can have an informed discussion about the risks, pressure their representatives to set limits, create oversight and demand adequate transparency. We can build a society where we are all aware of the compromise between liberty and security, and where we don't have to live in fear of the government listening to everything we say, where dissent isn't suppressed and the ghost og McCarthy will never again be allowed to haunt us.
If the risk taken for that level of liberty is that some spotty teenager might be able to down the cell network for a few hours, so be it. We'll figure out how he did it and prevent him from doing it again.
But I, for one, do not acknowledge the "right" of the state to incite terror amongst it's subjects in an effort to cow them into submission. I will not allow my nation the ability to spy on me without a warrant in the name of protecting me.
If you cannot understand the difference between the levels of risk discussed then quite frankly you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government. Or computers, for that matter. Your ability to understand the basic concepts of risk management are at best compromised...but in reality, damned near non-existent.
"Well, isn't that exactly the stance of the US establishment (NSA, Pentagon, etc.)? In which case why are you worried about them being harmed? "
I'm not. I give negative fucks about the USA. But I recognize their right to defend their national interests as is defined in international law.
Similarly, I give zero fucks about Matt Bryant, and if a rock from space burrowed it's way through the atmosphere and struck him dead, I would laugh uproariously and then continue about my day. But I recognize his rights as defined under the UDHR.
As much as I wish both parties would evaporate into a cloud of "no longer present on Earth" in short order, that doesn't mean I would either act to make that occur or encourage others to do so. They have rights that are defined in international law, and as much as I dislike the entities involved, if those rights are to apply to any of us, they must apply to all of us.
Re: Potty Trouble is
"The argument that a jihadi wouldn't risk bringing the ire of the rest of the world down on Islam simply doesn't work when discussing people for whom a martyr's death is not merely a price to pay but a goal in itself."
I never said that you would have trouble finding jihadis willing to blow themselves up. You seem to be conflating the willingness to die of footsoldiers with the willingness to sacrifice their entire cause.
A jihadi believes that if he dies, he goes to heaven, but as a general rule they are fighting to spread the influence of their culture and religion throughout the world. That is what is worth dying for, and why they're getting into heaven.
If Jihadis nuke a western city then I fucking promise you that all our treaties and social progressiveness, the Geneva convention and the laws of war will amount to nothing. The world will unite as it never has before and expunge those fuckers from the planet. We may not wipe out Islam in it's entirety, but we absolutely would wipe out every single fundamentalist Islamic on the face of the Earth. Every single last fucking one of them.
Understand that there are tens of millions of westerners ready to pick up the sword right now, today and make that happen. And we haven't even had a nuclear incident. If a fundamentalist Islamic group nuked New York, or London, Tokyo or Seoul the public's tone would change from conciliatory to "bloody vengeance" in less time than it takes to flip a transistor.
Remember: 50% of the UK wants to bring back the death penalty. 50%! The numbers in Canada, NZ, Oz and so forth are not that different. We're willing to compromise our morals for petty crimes of passion.
8 million dead in an instant, 25 million more slowly dying of radiation poisoning and the economy collapsed to the point that an entire nation has suddenly hit an additional 15% unemployment?
Yes, we'd kill for that. We'd kill hundreds of millions to avenge that. We would kill and kill and kill some more until the threat posed by those who believe the same as the bastards who used the nuke was 100% completely eliminated. We might even be willing to live in Matt's desired dystopia of zero civil liberties. All given up in exchange for the illusion of freedom.
But do not kid yourself - any of you - into thinking that we westerners are so much more highly "evolved" than the same nutjobs murdering women for going to school. Push us far enough and we are every bit as savage and brutal as they are.
So I stick by what I said:
You can find an infinite number of peckerheads willing to blow up a nuke in the middle of downtown New York, but the kind of people who can actually get hold of the good to make it happen are absolutely not crazy enough to actually do it. They know that they will gain nothing and lose everything.
For those who want to die, there are any number of methods available, ones that don't involve everything they believe in being expunged from the earth in an act of overwhelming vengeance.
I think it falls somewhere between "material classified for the hell of it" and "material classified for a good reason." At the time the facility was set up there was probably a good reason to classify that particular aspect of it's operation.
"Tapping all fibre pipes for the purpose of dragnet surveillance" was not going to come as a shock to nation-states or terrorists, but the ability to do so was rare and incredibly expensive. That meant that taking out that facility could have severely crippled UK intelligence gathering capability and hence would have been a priority target for many groups.
Today, everyone knows about the fibre tapping, and we've moved from "difficult and expensive" to "mundane and industrialized." You don't need a footbal feild full of servers to tap the stream and nose out juicy bits of data any more. You can do that in a half rack, and stream the bits you want to store to storage located at ???.
Today's spies don't have to worry about building mega-facilities to tap fibre. "Distance to storage" and "amount of signal interference" are of greater concern than "physical space to store compute" or "availability of electricity and cooling." You can park a sub on top of a fibre pipe and get all the juicy goodies you want, or send a squad with truck out into the hills.
So, what does the information released by The Register really do? That base was already a generic "UK military be here" target long ago. It was long suspected of doing SIGINT work, and after Snowden, anyone who actually cared to try to pin down the locations where this was taking place would have added A and B and said "oh, there's one."
Maybe it causes the UK to beef up security a little, or add a few more keywords to their SIGINT search filters. It doesn't make the facility more or less of a target because the period during which taking that place out would have truly made the UK vulnerable has already passed.
Now, it's existence and purpose are a footnote in history. Interesting not because of what it does, but because of the political machinations that allowed it to exist in the first place. That means revealing it's existence doesn't compromise operational security, but it does call into question the actions of politicians and spooks, and may embarrass some people.
Re: The EFF is a joke
EFF NSA is a joke. They have no clue and they don't represent the interest of the populace.
Re: Im all for bashing the NSA
If the CDC spent their time developing weaponised Ebola but never bothered to develop a cure, or even to let other government agencies know the potential danger of the weapons being developed then sure, it's exactly the same.
Re: Daniel " the US government wasn't hoarding vast amounts of zero-day security flaws"
"Now if the head of the NSA department that collects these sorts of things said that (under oath and connected to a polygraph) I might believe them."
I'd only even consider believing him if the polygraph was a brand new model he couldn't have had a chance to learn how to beat, and he was made aware that with any "lie" detected by the detected by the device he would be covered in petrol and set on fire, to die screaming in unendurable agony.
Even then, however, I would still have trouble believing him. Sociopaths are pretty good at defeating lie detectors.
Re: Can't see the gray area here
Non compete agreements can't be enforced here, so let the poxy whoresons add whatever clauses they like. I'll tell 'em "up the jacksie" and be off on my merry.
Re: Top boffinry by the sound of it
Sure I can. These things + Maxta = bye bye SAN. No need for the storage area network OR the arrays that live on it.
Thanks for finally adding encryption in flight, Microsoft. Unfortunately, your solution is still not proof against NSLs, and thus not secure.
I'll continue using Sync.com.
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- Review + Vid Apple iPhone 6 Plus: What a waste of gorgeous pixel density
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- Analysis Will BlackBerry make a comeback with its SQUARE smartphones?