Our Recommendation

Thursday, December 16, 2010

JBoss team brings together in the cloud (java .sys - con .com)

"As we have already begun aggressively run, this funding will help us further delivery of fuel and the adoption of our PaaS" said CloudBees founder & CEO Sacha Labourey recently announced CloudBees received 4 million in funding for series A led by partners of the matrix with the participation of individual investors, including JBoss Founder Marc Fleury and JBoss/HP/Blue veteran Bob Bickel.

"I am pleased that the matrix, Marc, Bob and others have confidence in our technology, strategy, and the excellent technical team provide us capital for growth," added Labourey.

Thanks to this series A round CloudBees becomes quite JBoss clustering. Labourey itself is former CTO of JBoss, while Bickel served as Vice President of strategy for the JBoss application server, to play a crucial role in forming business model and strategic business partnerships so that securing raw recruits key executives.

Marc Fleury (photo) of course was the founder of JBoss.


Marc Fluery dance la Macarena SYS-CON .TV viewers back in 2006

But the meeting there stops. Far from it. Join CSD CloudBees with Bickel is general matrix partner David Skok, who was the lead investor in JBoss, which was acquired by Red Hat in 2006 for $ 350 million.

What is reunited JBoss team creates the first Java Cloud-agnostic platform as a service (PaaS), a play succinctly described by Fleury as follows:

"The cloud represents a new opportunity for failure, similar to what I've seen with Enterprise Java 10 years." Like JBoss provided a simplified and useable, BEA and IBM, alternative CloudBees provide innovation and ease of use in batteries overblown cloud VMware. »

Skok is very excited by CloudBees strategy put in place one foot in the cloud for driving innovation in java.

"PaaS is the next logical evolution of cloud computing", he noted, and the PaaS layer CloudBees is shaping the future of how applications will be built and run. We believe this represents a huge market, and the team is well positioned to execute on it. »

Jeremy Geelan is President & clouds Expo, Inc. COO. He is President of conference series cloud Expo in the world of virtualization and the forthcoming UlitzerLIVE conference series! event. During his tenure with SYS-CON Media, he launched Cloud Computing Journal, Web 2.0 journal, AJAX & RIA journal and other titles of SYS-CON leaders. 2000-6, As the first editorial director and then the SYS-CON Group Publisher, he was responsible for the development of all new titles and i-technology enterprise portals. From 2006 to 2010, as Mr. VP of editorial & events, he had full responsibility for the content of the portfolio of SYS - CON events. He has regularly represents SYS-CON Events Media & conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences both in North America and abroad. He is the Executive producer and presenter of "Power groups with Jeremy Geelan" on SYS - CON .TV.

The inhumane conditions of detention Bradley Manning (daringfireball.net)

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon

(updated below)

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.  Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement.  For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell.  Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions.  For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).  For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs.  Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado:  all without so much as having been convicted of anything.  And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture.  In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture."  By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity.  A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence.  "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit."  As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."  Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .

This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world.  In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences.  But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement.  Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions."  The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts."  The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states:  "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."

When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely.  Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement."  Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement.  Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury."  Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.

Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here.  But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico.  He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him.  Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture.  More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it.  The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community."  And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."

The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well.  There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment.  The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month."  From the Journal article referenced above:

International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric.  Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions.  At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning.  Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

* * * * *

The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts.  If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.  If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg.  Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":

The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me.  He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo.  And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form:  discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."  Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here.  The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him.  That's true for every prisoner, at all times.  But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing.  These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

What all of this achieves is clear.  Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear.  Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?  

That is plainly what is going on here.  Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant.  Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions."  But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight.  If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial:  just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it?  That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.

* * * * *

Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here.  All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.

UPDATE:  I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote:  specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the proscribed time he is permitted to watch television.  That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.

A very inexpensive device for (subject) programmable wireless

Im-ME

As long as you do mind the color (or women), IM-me ™ is a portable messengering Mattel Radica Division (sold as a girl the United Kingdom Tech) with integrated QWERTY keyboard and display 24 x 8 characters.

You can buy the around $ 25 / ?25 from Amazon. United Kingdom, it is not uncommon for $ US price of items to be the same price in pounds! I've not seen the ads, but wonder if Mattel is making as they appear to be greatly reduced.

However, it seems that they are not too difficult to steal as it has no encryption and therefore people have taken to hacking their. This post on the Dave Hacks (pas moi!), describes the hardware and how it performs, while Travis Goodspeed describes some other uses for it. He also mentioned the SDCC compiler open source which allows you to compile C to IM me CPU.

Or if you prefer c#, developer Ben Ryves has some IM c# code me. SDCC is listed in the

Making Bayesian on Julian Assange (daringfireball.net)

Erreur lors de la désérialisation du corps du message de réponse pour l’opération « Translate ». Dépassement du quota maximal pour la longueur du contenu de chaîne (8192) lors de la lecture de données XML. Ce quota peut être augmenté en modifiant la propriété MaxStringContentLength sur l’objet XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas utilisé pendant la création du lecteur XML. Ligne 1, position 8685.
Erreur lors de la désérialisation du corps du message de réponse pour l’opération « Translate ». Dépassement du quota maximal pour la longueur du contenu de chaîne (8192) lors de la lecture de données XML. Ce quota peut être augmenté en modifiant la propriété MaxStringContentLength sur l’objet XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas utilisé pendant la création du lecteur XML. Ligne 1, position 9006.

Suppose that you are taking the bullet train from Kyoto, Japan to Tokyo, as I did yesterday. The woman seated across from you has somewhat unusual facial features. You are curious to know whether she is Japanese, Caucasian, or some mix of both.

Suppose furthermore that I asked you to estimate, in percentage terms, the likelihood of each of these three possibilities (ignoring others like that she might be Korean, Latina, etc.) Certainly, there are lots of other clues that we might look for to improve our estimate: How is she dressed? How tall is she? What type of mobile phone is she carrying? What is her posture like? (The more forthright among us, of course, might also seek to start a conversation with her, in which case the answer might become clear more quickly.) That notwithstanding, in the absence of further information, most of us would tend to equivocate: perhaps there is a 25 percent chance that she is Japanese, we might say, a 25 percent chance that she is Caucasian, and a 50 percent chance that she is of mixed ethnicity.

But that would be a fairly bad answer. Even in the absence of additional information about the woman, we have another very important clue that can become surprisingly easy to forget if we become too fixated on the details: we are in Japan!  There are a lot more Japanese people in Japan than there are Caucasians (indeed, the country remains among the more ethnically homogeneous industrialized societies.) It probably follows also that there are a lot more white-looking Japanese people in Japan than there are Japanese-looking white people. It’s therefore quite a bit more likely that we’ve encountered one of the former than one of the latter on our train ride. A better ‘prediction’ about her ethnicity, then – conditioned on the fact that we are in Japan — might be something like this: there is a 60 percent chance she is Japanese, a 35 percent chance she is mixed, and only a 5 percent chance she is Caucasian. If we were on a train from Boston to New York, instead of from Kyoto to Tokyo, the probabilities would gravitate toward the other end of the spectrum.

Psychologists and behavioral economists have conducted a lot of experiments along these lines, testing our ability to think through problems that involve what statisticians call Bayesian inference: those that require to us to infer the likelihood of various possibilities based on a combination of prior, underlying conditions (we are in Japan: most people we encounter here will be of Japanese ancestry) and new information (but based on this woman’s appearance, it is hard to tell whether she is Caucasian or Japanese!) They’ve found that, in general, we do pretty badly with them: we tend to get lost in the most immediate details and we forget the underlying context.

I was reminded about this recently when reading WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities on charges that that he has committed sexual assault. People have spent a lot of time debating the details of the charges, which invoke a number of difficult questions about what constitutes consent during a sexual encounter. Commenters differ in their interpretations both about the facts intrinsic to the case and in their readings of Swedish law.
I certainly do not intend to resolve those debates, although they are by no means uninteresting or unimportant. What I would suggest, however, is that it would be a mistake, from the standpoint of Bayesian reasoning, to think we can separate out the merits of the charges from their political motivations.
There is virtually no chance that the case against Mr. Assange would have proceeded in quite the same manner if he were instead an itinerant painter named Jens Andersen, or a traveling salesman named John Andrews — instead of an internationally renowned provocateur. Indeed, the charges might not have been brought against Mr. Assange in the first place. Sweden has among the highest rates of reported rape cases in the European Union. But unfortunately, few cases are brought to trial (only between 10 and 20 percent, according to various reports), and fewer still result in convictions.
That alone might not tell us much. There are other ways, however, in which the behavior of the authorities has been quite unusual.
The initial warrant in the case against Mr. Assange had been issued in August. But it was  revoked the next day, due to what the lead prosecutor cited as a lack of evidence. It was only last month – just as WikiLeaks was preparing to release a set of confidential diplomatic cables – that Sweden again issued a warrant to detain him.
After turning himself in to the authorities in London, Mr. Assange was initially denied bail (although he has since been awarded it) — which is particularly unusual given that Swedish authorities have still not formally charged him with a crime, but merely want to bring him in for questioning. Most unusually still, Sweden had issued an Interpol red alert for Mr. Assange’s arrest, something they have done for only one other person this year accused of a sex crime: Jan Christer Wallenkurtz, who is suspected of multiple cases of sexual assault against children. 
The handling of the case has been highly irregular from the start, in ways that would seem to make clear that the motivation for bringing the charges is political.
Does that mean, however, that the underlying charges themselves are spurious, trumped up, outright false, or otherwise dubious? (Some have speculated, for instance, that Mr. Assange may have been entrapped.) No, not for certain, of course — but it does have an impact on the probabilities.
From our standpoint, there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened between Mr. Assange and the two women in Sweden. This is common in sexual assault cases, which can be very difficult to prove, in part because victims are often too scared or too traumatized to provide as many details about the case as authorities might want. Also, of course, prosecutors will want to make the case seem as strong as possible, while the defense will want to make it seem as weak as possible, so they will be selective about which facts they release to the public.
A case that might intrinsically be very strong (if we were omniscient and knew exactly what happened) might seem relatively weak to us; likewise, a case that were relatively weak could be made to seem strong. It is as though we are again on that bullet train in Japan, trying to discern the identity of the passenger seated next to us, but having only a limited and ambiguous set of clues with which to do so.
What is less ambiguous here, however — as in the case of my bullet train analogy — is the underlying context. The handling of the charges suggests that the motivation for bringing them against Mr. Assange is political. If the motivation is political, then the merits of the charges might matter less. Even if they fail to result in a conviction, the authorities might nevertheless succeed in, in essence, incapacitating Mr. Assange for several months, and preventing him from releasing further documents through WikiLeaks. They might also injure Mr. Assange’s reputation among the public: certainly I have learned more about details Mr. Assange’s personal life in recent days than I would care to know.
Under these circumstances, then, it becomes more likely that the charges are indeed weak (or false) ones made to seem as though they are strong. Conversely, if there were no political motivation, then the merits of the charges would be more closely related to authorities’ zealousness in pursing them, and we could take them more at face value.
I suspect this point will seem obvious to many of you: the fact that the charges are (apparently) politically motivated is indeed a reason to regard them skeptically, and they make it less likely — perhaps much less likely — that Mr. Assange is guilty of them. (Although he may be guilty of being a creep even if he is not guilty of a crime.)
Nevertheless, I have come across a number of analyses that try to evaluate the merits of the charges without regard to this political context, or which otherwise seem caught up in debating their salacious details. That is likely a mistake: in a world of limited information, the political motivation behind the charges might be the most important clue we have in evaluating their merit.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Eucalyptus & Red Hat: New Best Friends cloud (opensource .sys - con .com)

Eucalyptus and Red Hat systems are now partners.

Red Hat has many ambitions of clouds and provides the infrastructure, but it is not a cloud platform.

Eucalyptus has a platform open to private source cloud the lifting heavy and provides signature elasticity of the cloud.

Practically speaking there are not many companies horizontally integrated eucalyptus can pal around with. Canonical, which already received, and Red Hat, it received its first peak at two, according to CEO Mårten Mickos, which discourages the inevitable speculation that perhaps to Red Hat be outstanding purchase eucalyptus.


Mårten Mickos gave a session on the cloud Expo Silicon Valley in November 2010

Mickos, the guy who sold the Sun for a breathtaking billion, MySQL has worked on the market, since it obtained from eucalyptus, picked up the phone and called Red Hat in March.

You get the eucalyptus in the face of many more people and probably give more feet on the street. It should contribute to Red Hat peddling virtualization in competition with its big peeve, VMware. Try the cloud without virtualization.

The pair quote prediction market for cloud computing will grow 8.7 billion in revenue this year to 16.7 billion in 2013 451 Group. They are also heated by the Group of Yankee survey found that two thirds of it decision makers prefer private internal cloud model public or hybrid although clouds eucalyptus can rig up a hybrid cloud if you want.

With tests and all needed until the turn towards the middle of the year next to eucalyptus supporting framework to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization and be compatible with Apache sponsored by Red Hat Deltacloud API.

Once it is completed, users must be able to transform virtualized Red Hat in secure private clouds eucalyptus environments while promoting the objective of interoperability of Deltacloud unified single based rest API used to manage the services on a cloud.

Users can run applications and workloads on the eucalyptus or public clouds Deltacloud supports. At this time, which should include vCloud Terremark and VMWare as well as the support currently EC2 GoGrid OpenNebula, Rackspace, RHEV-M, RimuHosting.

Eucalyptus already supports the Amazon API and asserts that it is the only cloud software which can deliver all the benefits of standard industry such as Amazon Web Services private IT infrastructure public clouds.

Perhaps he will try Xen then. Meanwhile, eucalyptus has something to paste the nose of Rackspace and its OpenStack effort.

Maureen O'Gara most read technology journalist for 20 years, is the Publisher of Cloud Computing and virtualization of SYS-CON Press Office. She is the editor of the famous "Billygrams" and "client server news" Editor-in-Chief for over a decade. One of the technology journalists more respected in entrepreneurship, Maureen can be reached via e-mail maureen (at) sys - con .com or paperboy (at) g2news.com and by phone at 516 759-7025. Twitter: @ MaureenOGara

Sand falling game on and FPGA (Hackaday.com)


This sand falling game runs on a field-programmable gate array. The Altera Cyclone II lies at the heart of the Development Committee, run the game written in Verilog. [Skyler Schneider] modeled his project after a version of Java game called Pyro Sand Game. It treats each pixel VGA 640 × 480 screen as its own cell, through a set of rules to edit cells around him. This is very similar to Conway s Game of Life, except that there are different categories of cells behave uniquely (oil, water, plants, fire, etc.) and gravity is a key factor. Particular interest for us were the rules for each cell, and the [Skyler] method used to feed and to synchronize the VGA output. After the break you can see videos of demonstration, which through all features including the troll button.

PHP scripts to interact with (PHP generator) networks

PHP Scripts for Interacting with Networks

by Leidago Noabeb

PHP has a great many tools for interacting with a network and also with the Internet. In this article, I examine some of those tools and functions to show how exactly you can use them to make your scripts more useful in a network environment. Click here to download the accompanying source code.Accessing other sites with PHP is extremely easy, but why would you want to do that? If you just want to get information from a website (for instance, a website that offers weather reports for a city that is of interest to you), then you can write a spider to get that information and more.In PHP, you access a website in pretty much the same way that you would access a text file on your hard drive -- by using fopen().fopen(http://localhost/websecure/ftp.php, "r");The fopen() function that you use to open files is the same one you use to open Web pages, because a Web page is essentially a file on a server. The fopen() method has the modes listed in the following table.Table 1. Modes of fopen() Method
Reading only -- Begins reading at the start of the fileReading or writing -- Begins reading at the start of the fileWriting only -- Creates the file if it does not exist, and overwrites any existing contentsReading or writing -- Creates the file if it does not exist, and overwrites any existing contents (when writing)Writing only -- Creates the file if it does not exist, and appends the new data to the end of the fileReading or writing -- Creates the file if it does not exist, and overwrites any existing contents (when writing)Writing only -- Creates the file if it does not exist, but does nothing (issues a warning) when the file does existReading or writing -- Creates the file if it does not exist, but does nothing (issues a warning) when the file does existYou will be able to open a file only for reading, unless the permissions are set otherwise. Also, you will have to use a trailing slash after a directory because fopen does not support redirects. For example, this example is fine:fopen("http://localhost/websecure/ftp.php/", "r");But this one will fail:fopen(http://localhost/websecure/ftp.php, "r");When you've opened a file, you can pretty much treat it the same way that you would any other file, using common functions such as file() or fgets() to place or retrieve the data.Example code might be something like this:"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
And the processing code might look something like this:PHP provides a powerful set of functions for DNS name resolution. The functions that PHP provides are limited to DNS client functionality; it provides no server-related functions. However, the DNS client functions are enough because most applications will require only a name-resolution service. Below is a list of some of the functions that are available in PHP (from the PHP manual):gethostbyname() string gethostbyname(string hostname)This function takes a single argument -- the hostname of a machine -- and returns a string corresponding to the IP address: This script displays the IP address of http://localhost as a dot-separated string of numbers. We need to obtain the IP address of a host before we can connect to it using the sockets API, as you shall soon see.gethostbynamel() array gethostbynamel(string hostname)Machines running operating systems that support virtual IP addresses (that is, one network card can have multiple IP addresses) can have more than one IP address associated with them. In this case, gethostbynamel() works like gethostbyname() but returns the complete list of IP addresses associated with that hostname as an array: \n"); for ($i = 0; $i < count($ip); $i++) { echo("$ip [i]
\n"); } ?>Assuming that web.local.com is a machine with multiple IP addresses, this script prints a list of all those addresses.The other scenario where one DNS name maps on to multiple IP addresses is when certain DNS server implementations (such as BIND) support a feature known as DNS round robin. This is a rudimentary load-balancing mechanism where one DNS name maps to multiple machines (that is, IP addresses of multiple machines). The DNS queries are resolved by the server to each of these IP addresses using a round robin scheme, thereby distributing the request load between multiple machines. Find more information on BIND here.gethostbyaddr() string gethostbyaddr(string ip_address)This function does the reverse of gethostbyname() in that, given the IP address as an argument, it returns the host name corresponding to it. This script displays the hostname corresponding to the IP address 127.0.0.1, which is always the localhost machine (that is, the machine the script was run on).While each machine on the TCP/IP network must have at least one IP address, there is no requirement that it should have a DNS name. Thus, it is entirely possible that a machine may have an IP address and no DNS entry. In which case, the function returns the ip_address argument itself. In fact, if an error occurs, the return value of the function is the ip_address argument.getprotobyname() int getprotobyname(string name)This function returns the protocol number associated with a TCP/IP protocol, which is a unique integer associated with the protocol name that is passed to it as an argument. The name to protocol mapping is stored in a text file, usually in /etc/protocols on UNIX-derived systems and %SystemRoot%\System32\drivers\etc\protocol on Microsoft Windows NT or Windows 2000.getprotobynumber() string getprotobynumber(int number)This function has just the opposite functionality of the getprotobyname() function in that, given the protocol number as an argument, it displays the protocol name.getservbyname() int getservbyname(string service, string protocol)We need to obtain a well-known port number at which a service is running before our client can connect to it. This function takes a service name and the transport protocol (that is, either TCP or UDP) and returns the port number associated with the service. On most UNIX machines, the port number to service mapping is specified in the /etc/services file: This prints the port number of the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) as 25. On most UNIX machines, the information mapping the protocol name with the protocol number is available in the /etc/protocol file.getservbyport() string getservbyport(int port, string protocol)This function has just the opposite functionality of getservbyname(); it prints the service name associated with the port number argument. The protocol argument indicates the transport protocol (that is TCP or UDP) that the service is implemented over.As we saw, the getprotobyname(), getprotobynumber(), getservbyname(), and getservbynumber() functions obtain their information from files on the local file system (on most platforms). Therefore, they are not really DNS functions, but I examine them in this context because they are essentially resolver functions.[ Next Page ]



You can post questions/corrections/feedback here

 

If you are looking for help, please post on the appropriate forum here. Your questions will be answered much more quickly.