On Jan 30, 8:23 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> ____/ Linonut on Wednesday 30 January 2008 19:19 : \____
> > * Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
> >> ____/ Linonut on Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:59 : \____
> >>> * Rex Ballard peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> >>>> Linux and Unix on the other hand, are designed so that all critical
> >>>> management functions can be scripted, which means that it's much
> >>>> easier to automate most of the management. This is one of the reasons
> >>>> why Linux and Unix servers are so popular in IT centers and have such
> >>>> low TCO.
>
> >>> Took ya long enough to get to the meat of it!
> > If Rex could get out a vetted, verified book about this stuff, even
> > assuming only half of what he posts here is strictly true, it would
> > cause quite a stir.
Nick Negroponte wrote a book, much of which appears to have been
based, in part at least, on my writings to the Online-news mailing
list, it was called "Being Digital". He did a great job, and I'm not
sure I could have done any better myself.
I've put many of my works on my website, more for historical
reference, but I really don't have a lot of time to write books.
Often, when I'm working on an engagement, I spend 60-80 hours/work
working on the deliverables for the engagement. Often, these works
are small books themselves, but in most cases, they are not intended
for general publication. In fact, most of them are confidential, and
some are even classified.
> Just remember that a lot of effort will be put into 'poisoning the well' and
> have you not listen to those whose words are seen as 'dangerous'. In politics,
> the same goes to Bilderberg experts who really understand the
> political/banking corruptions and write about it.
Many of those who really understand the political/banking corruptions
don't write about it because they understand the consequences of doing
so. Often, they attempt to work through private and secure channels
to identify and address the risks within the system rather than
starting a general panic that could lead to another Great Depression.
My great-uncle was Lloyd Mints. Lloyd was the father of the Chicago
School of Economics, and even though he had earned a PhD, he refused
to pick it up because he didn't want to become "Doctor" Mints. He was
eventually given his PhD at his 100th birthday when he shared his
thoughts on economics on the local television station. He continued
to advise the treasury departmant and the Federal Reserve until his
death at 102.
When Ronald Reagan tried to deregulate the Savings and Loans, Lloyd
knew this was a bad idea, and didn't hesitate to tell the secretary of
the Treasury and other top treasury department officials that he felt
it was a bad idea, because the savings and loans didn't understand
commercial real estate. About 6 years later, he got a call, from the
Secretary of the Treasury, telling him he was right, and asking him
for his thoughts on how to resolve the crisis. Even though they were
aware that there was a problem in the banking system, none of the
information was made public, because if it had been made public, there
might have been a run on the banks.
Almost two years before the subprime mortgage issues became public,
the experts knew that there were problems with many adjustable rate
mortgages, interest only mortgages, and other highly leveraged housing
loans. They knew that there was a problem, but had to work out how to
prevent the collapse of the entire banking system before the issue
became public. Had the issue been raised by top ranking publicly
recognized officials or leaders, it could have triggered an
unrecoverable crash in the entire mortgage market, making it
impossible for anybody to buy or sell a house. The issue didn't
become public until the remedial plan had already been devised and was
already being implemented.
> There are many forces that try to embargo these people.
> You can't assassinate people because that would raise doubt;
> instead, marginalising them is a method of choice.
This is why the FBI and CIA, and many corporations, see to marginalize
people, often getting "problems" addicted to drugs, involved in sexual
affairs, or financial scandals. It's much easier to discredit Bill
Clinton by charging him with perjury and making sure that the details
of the perjury (the underwear slipped) is not made public, along with
keeping the "star witness" under a "gag order" until the last possible
moment.
It's much easier to discredit Richard Nixon by implying that he was
personally involved in ordering the Watergate break-in and keeping the
fact that he didn't actually know about it until way after the fact,
until just before the vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Ironically, both actions may have been triggered by attempts to
dismantle the "Military Industrial Complex" and the "Texas Mafia" that
controlled oil, and military contractors. Nixon was hit because he
had stopped all the wars and was on the verge of ending the Cold war.
Clinton waws hit because when confronted with the need to use military
force, he resorted to surgical strikes rather than protracted
conflictts.
There are some things I still don't or can't write about, because it
wouldn't be appropriate.
As it is I get away with alot because I'm NOT a celebrity expert.
> ~~ Best of wishes
> Roy S. Schestowitz | "Seeing bad movies only encourages them"http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> 01:20:03 up 6 days, 11:14, 3 users, load average: 1.97, 2.01, 1.67
> http://iuron.com- Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
