Slashdot Mirror
How Long is Too Long to Update?
StWaldo asks: "I'm sure everyone knows the story about the life expectancy of an fresh, un-updated PC, once it's connected to the internet. What about a PC which just hasn't been updated in a while? I've been deployed in Iraq for the last 9 months, and haven't been able to hook up my laptop to the internet to get updates (I do HAVE access, just can't hook up a personal laptop, gov't only). Before I deployed, I would update my software (system, anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware, etc) regularly, but as I get closer to coming back to the States and my broadband connection, I'm beginning to wonder what the life expectancy of my PC will be. What's the lifecycle of a security exploit, hack, virus, etc - between discovery/release, propagation, and extinction (or a state approaching extinction)?"
...with an unprotected connection? Who cares?
1. Put your computer behind literally any personal firewall/router (Linksys, DLink, etc.) that can be had - wireless and wired or both - for under $50.
2. If you have Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), just make sure the firewall for your network connection is still enabled; it is by default on SP2, and Security Center will warn you if it isn't. Unless you explicitly disabled it, it will still be enabled.
If you don't yet have Service Pack 2, simply enable the Windows firewall (Internet Connection Firewall) for any network interface(s) you have. This can be done on the Advanced tab of each connection's Properties.
3. There is no step 3.
There's nothing you have to do other than ensure you have a software firewall enabled, and optionally have your machine behind a nice little personal firewall/router. Then it doesn't matter how long it's been or what exploits are out there[1].
That's it. Even the built-in Windows software firewall on a machine with no patches or service packs installed will protect a Windows XP system. Seem simple? It is. One wonders why it took Microsoft *so long* to make it the default.
[1] Sure, there may be exploits that affect browsers or other aspects of the system that could be exploited by *visiting malicious sites*, but the machine, just sitting there, won't be vulnerable. If all you're going to do is immediately update everything anyway, you have nothing to worry about.
Buy a Mac. :p
(while, yes, I appreciate Macintosh computers, it is true that security issues are of great concern for everyone. It is still important for Mac users to stay updated, just as it is important for everyone else.)
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
don't start any applications
make sure your firewall is running
do your updates
bingo
Make sure you are behind a nat router or decent firewall and do not have any redirected ports (or DMZ) to the private ip address you machine should be using... and you will be pretty safe... not entirely, but your chances of getting infected are relatively low provided you do not stray too far from the path while updating.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Turn on your windows firewall. Then start windows *BEFORE* connecting to the internet. Once you're finished starting windows, connect and download your patches, etc.
;-)
Repeat as necessary.
P.S. don't forget to download Firefox for a safer browsing
we need a guineau pig to find out for us... oh wait, er... tell us when YOU find out :P
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
The key word there would seem to be "unprotected". A $49 firewall set to block all incoming traffic (which you can configure off-line) followed by direct surfing to appropriate update links before doing anything else (and installation of Firefox for most browsing if you don't already have it) should do the trick.
sPh
Don't do it. For the love of bob, don't do it. Make sure your computer is behind a firewall and only then should you connect. The first thing you should do is get all the latest security updates for Windows. NOTHING ELSE. NO WEB BROWSING at this point.
Once that install/reboot cycle is complete, grab the latest updates for your antivirus and antispyware system. For extra security, make sure you perform a complete scan for viruses and spyware after all the updates are complete.
Once that install/reboot cycle is complete, update the rest of your applications.
Under no circumstances should you attempt this without being behind a secure firewall. Even if you are, you still have to be very very careful (hence, no web browsing until your computer is up to date on Windows and antivirus updates).
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Spend $50 to buy a hardware firewall and the life expectancy of your laptop will skyrocket :-)
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I think the doom and gloom may be overstating the dangers here.
My wife hadn't touched her laptop computer in 6 months. She fired it up, it was updated in 5 minutes and she was fine.
Two things helped:
a hardware firewall
It already had XP SP2
If that's your situation, just fire it up and go.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...if your update comes out before the next version of the Slashcode.
Obligatory reference to Average PC survival time
http://www.transparency.org
> I'm beginning to wonder what the life expectancy of my PC will be.
Around 5 years, but hard drive will probably fail sooner.
As long as you have a decent firewall on your PC, you can update at your leisure. If your firewall is working, then the bad guys are kept out. Of course, you can always get past the firewall by opening up an OUTBOUND connection (web brwoser, e-mail, etc.). In that case, worry.
For the paranoid running XP, here is what I would do;
1) Connect to the internet through a cheap and properly configured NAT box (if possible)
2) Update firewall
3) Update windows
3) Download any update for other programs that you use (Firefox, Thundebird, etc.)
BTW: I hope that you are not using Outlook and IE.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You've plenty of time, if you are behind a firewall, or even a basic home NATing router. If you don't have one, I'd consider getting one, or visiting a friend who has one to get patches.
1) Get all the updates from a friend and burn them to a CD. Install updates before connecting to the internet.
2) Connect to the internet behind a hardware firewall/NAT device. Then update everything.
I would recommend doing both.
Don't worry 'bout it...I'm already in your box...
Seriously though, one thing you didn't mention is what OS you are running. I'm going to assume it's Windows and as such what you might try, if you are indeed worried about plugging up, is to download XPSP2 and whatever other patches you can find from a known good machine and apply it to your machine while the box is offline. Or, if you can't d/l it, visit your base's IT shop and ask them for a copy.
The machine will have a lot shorter lifetime than an American soldier in Iraq...
We look forward to having you back, by the way! While there are those here on /. who opposed the war, politically, I think we all wished you (and all the other soldiers there) nothing but the best. Our thanks for a difficult job.
What kernel version are you running? Even on an old OS, if you do not expose any unnecessary functions to the Internet (such as BIND DNS), you should be relatively safe.
I have an old Redhat 8 system running on a AMD K63-500. It hasn't been rebooted in 4 years (yes, the kernel is horribly out of date... but there are few outside services, and no untrusted users). I'm afraid to upgrade such an old beast... I can't imagine Fedora Redhat and the QA folks spending much time on these ancient chipsets.
You aren't running Windows, are you?
Your life expectancy, depending on what sites you go to, is about 4 minutes before you have 60 pieces of spyware, which then turn into 200 in about a half-hour. At least, that's my test on my Dual Xeon, with Windows XP SP2.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
Order the Windows Updates on CD now, so it'll be there when you return. Run the updates before connecting to the net. Then check for even newer updates from MS. Immediately update anti-virus and anti-malware products.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Behind a firewall: Until you do something stupid.
On the net raw running windows: 30m.
On the net raw running linux: depends on the daemons.
Shadus
Well a good NAT Firewall will help, as many people have stated. However, with the level of paranoia that I'm at (and I'm a security architect for a large corp... so my paranoia is pretty high), I would load all major updates onto a thumb drive or CD or some other media and update before connecting to the web.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
If your computer sits behind a NAT based consumer router at home (all consumer routers are nat based) you only have to worry about getting a virus through e-mail, for the most part. You are safe enough to install windows updates right away.
If you connect your Cable/DSL modem directly into the computer then you are at risk without a firewall and the most recent service packs. All of the big exploits occure on machines without SP1 and there are a few for machines without SP2.
If you download Service Pack 2 standalone on a seperate machine before hooking up to your broadband. Then install that on your windows machine.
Once that's done enable a firewall. Turning on the Windows Firewall is good enough for right now if you don't have something else.
From this point, install the rest of the windows updates and update your antivirus definitions. You're basically safe with Service Pack2 and a firewall, but I wouldn't run a windows box without the most recent updates and AV.
AutopatcherXP is released pretty much monthly an is a conglomeration of all security updates, patches, etc.. any time i've had to install/reinstall XP onto someone's machine, i've grabbed the latest autopatcher and slapped it on my thumbdrive, and took it with me. requires no getting online on the new system until you're all done. safer that way, and i've had no issues doing it that way.
Just turn on the computer, hook up the internet, update virus first. Reboot and run Windows Update. Thats it. Its not like someone is waiting for you to get home and get ya as soon as you connect. You usually have to be doing something to have issues (i.e. bittorrnet, kazaa, limewire, etc.) What do you think people do when the reformat for a fresh install. If you are uber paranoid, download the latest virus definitions from your antivirus' webpage in executable form on another computer and transfer it to your own system and run it manually.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
For the love of bob
Microsoft Bob?
-everphilski-
Call it "anxiety" or "concern". It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You are trying to update an existing system, not build a fresh one. Using a cheap hardware firewall (like a linksys router) will keep most evil at bay while you do the update. Better to download the big security rollups and service packs from a current machine, burn to cd or thumbdrive, and install those on your box before you connect to the net.
8 6 for a nice pointer to all the patches you should snag. Get the major ones and you should be OK to just do an update.
Check out http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=318
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
man... you are in Irak...just think about YOUR life expectancy
You know, we're never going to again have the heady days of huge Windows viruses that propogave over the network and infect every Windows system in sight. The days of massive viruses like those are over.
What killed them? Windows Firewall. I think MS learned their lesson on that one.
Wouldn't you just do what everyone else does?
su
emerge sync
emerge -pv world
emerge world
??
I do not doubt you. I have only gotten a virus when I mistakenly clicked on a link sent by a co-worker. The minute I did it I realized it was a mistake, but we are all thoughtless sometime. What I want to know is this: Without a virus scanner, how do you know they are not infected?
Insert Generic Sig Here:
If your PC was clean when you leaved the Net and you didn't installed any software etc. while disconnected from the Net, a firewall well configured, stopping everything except outgoing connections, will give you plenty of time to upgrade your software, without any danger. Just do the upgrades as your first move when you're back on the Net. Regards
as I get closer to coming back to the States and my broadband connection, I'm beginning to wonder what the life expectancy of my PC will be
Now that's a geek.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I had to borrow a tile saw a couple of weeks ago. The guy, your "blue collar" type, asked if I knew how to use one. Me, the (ex)IT guy, couldn't say "Yes". I just said I've seen them used - which is true - until he got it out of me that I didn't. He said "It's OK to say you don't know.
Ya see, that's the thing in IT: if you admit not knowing you're called an idiot behind your back or sometimes, to your face and you begin to keep your mouth shut: to the detriment of anything and anyone you're working for.
So, think about that you arrogant prick or cunt.
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS Version: 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600
OS Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
OS Configuration: Standalone Workstation
OS Build Type: Multiprocessor Free
Original Install Date: 9/27/2004, 12:49:15 PM
System Up Time: 184 Days, 4 Hours, 3 Minutes, 16 Seconds
The only time i had to bring it down was to replace hardware (i am behind a corporate firewall, the XP firewall is active) and i don't care about patches. No, i am not trolling - windows machines enjoy decent uptimes too. Let me know if anyone wants too look at a screenshot.
And how can you post that news if you cannot connect???
I use a program that locks the computer's data and system in place while it's turned on, so each reboot is like a new computer. I try to patch every couple of months anyway, but behind a router if you don't have infcted machines coming in, there's little reason to patch under most cases.
The downside to Steadfast is that you can't use Antivirus updates with it unless you figure out which files need direct access to the disk, and spyware updates are hard to apply too. These days it's more important on public machines to have spyware than antivirus protection.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This isn't QUITE true; there are one or two older personal NAT routers where the initial factory firmware has had exploits published (especially with certain dumb default settings), and there are a few software packages with versions that both poked holes in the XP firewall and were exploitable. As far as I know, nothing in the wild specifically targets both, so unless you have reason to be worried about highly personalized targetting of your computer, it should be just fine. (If you do have reason, buy a newer router first.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I have a CD handy with XP service pack 2, as well as antivirus, antispyware, firewall, FireFox, etc. That way, I can get a computer up to speed before even reconnecting it to the internet. After the basics are covered, it's much safer to connect and do the fine-tuning. The same would apply to other versions of windows.
If you can't burn a CD from another computer, and you're pre-XP SP2, you might be better off operating behind a hardware firewall until the updates are completed.
Also remember that if you have a minor bug before completing updates, you can usually clean the system after you're up to speed (antivirus, antispyware, etc). The main issue with the auto-infect feature of new systems is that most users won't take the time to clean the system or even investigate if it's infected.
Quick checklist:
* Does it have SP2? - If no, get it and forget it.
* Is there constant hard disk activity? - If yes, reinstall.
* Do you visit online gambling/porn sites? - If yes, reinstall periodically (evidence? what evidence?)
* Does it take longer for you to be able to do something productive with the 'Start' button than it did to boot? - If yes, reinstall.
After reinstalling, install AVG antivirus, Google up some Windows hardening/protection techniques (msconfig, services to disable, etc) **INSTALL NO SHAREWARE OR THIRD PARTY "WINDOWS FIXING" UTILITIES**, enable Windows firewall, and set Windows Update to perform weekly updates with no intervention.
If things get weird after that, you have nobody but yourself to blame. After having resurrected Windows installations dating back to 95/3.11, I can say that the only sure-fire fix is a fdisk/reinstall.
It's Windows - it *will* break in an inaccesssible or unrecoverable fashion.
Make your time, and don't get taken in by supposedly friendly utilities, banners, offers, websites, emails, etc. This advice is applicable everywhere - life included.
Geez. If you can't figure that out or need a slashdotter to tell you, then you don't need to be using a computer.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I've been deployed in Iraq for the last 9 months...
BTW: We hope you get to look forward to something as mundane as Windows viruses real soon now. In case anyone hasn't mentioned it yet, "Thank you for the job you're doing."
Unplug the RJ45 and alwayss wear a condom.
/. is good for you.
Yes, because web services are THE solution when you're stuck in Iraq with no internet connection...
Even better--download and burn a live CD of Knoppix or similar single disk Linux OS, boot to it, and use the hard disk for data storage only. You will never look back.
Linux has a great firewall built in, separate accounts to keep system files safe, and tons of free software on board. In this day and age, you can boot up a modern distro and have basically everything you need--browser, word processor, spreadsheet, email client, games, music, video.
And there are no viruses in the Linux world (that one hears about, at least).
Dump your dangerous OS and you will never look back.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
In the current web 2.0 environment, updating is, in fact, irrelevant. We will all be tied into our apps 24/7 using AJAX and Ruby on Rails. Applications implemented using this paradigm will be updated continuously, like thin clients. Truly this is synergestic for updates.
As an IT professional, I can only recommend sitting down to take a shit, and when the logs start flowing, the piss will come if it wants. Don't forget to spray if it is especially foul. That said, if you are pressed for time, you may just want to piss in the bushes and get back to whatever it is you were doing. Watch out for frostbite in northern latitudes. Spending a few extra minutes to shit may save your pants down the road, but this is up to you to decide, as each colon is unique.
How many people really think that a Windows PC, when attached to a cable/DSL internet connection, is susceptible to viruses, infiltration, malware, spyware - JUST BY BEING CONNECTED?
How many people do you think there are out there scanning IPs looking for unprotected Windows boxes to molest? And out of those, who actually attempts to sploit the sploit? How many of *those* are successful?
It takes clicking, installing, running. It's not like bareback fucking a hooker in Bangkok.
Sure, you may be open to some exploits, but honestly, why the panic?
Glad you made it home safely!
Stay Safe.
I work with an AV tech support team for an ISP, and our experience is generally that infections tend to be visible for about a month, and after that, we don't tend to see them again. That's not to say you'll be safe from them all, but I thought I'd at least swing an answer at that last question. We tend to stop getting calls about a month after the malware is first identified, so i would hazard a guess that a system unpatched for a flaw more than a month old would be reasonably safe. At least safe enough to chance updating online from behind a router, and installing firefox, opera, or another browser with fewer, or at least less severe and more speedily patched flaws. I'd assume you ought to be pretty ok. If you're particularly worried, you could use a hardware firewall, but I see no need for it. Don't look at porn with IE before you update, you'll be fine...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...this isn't even relevant.
Considering you just took a shit all over this thread, I'd have to recommend taking a piss.
Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org slash
There is a place on the Windows Update Site where you can download the specific patches and then your could run them separately (Look for some link that they have for Admins). When entire sites or companies's computers have to be updated, they don't waste bandwidth be making every computer talk to windowsupdate.microsoft.com. They download it centrally and then install.
/ software/default.mspx). Some other tools:
i on/3000-8022_4-10045910.html?part=dl-ad-aware&subj =dl&tag=top5h tml
You could download the patches and then copy them to your machine using a Jump Drive or some External HDD.
Also remember to install the MS Anti Spyware Tool (http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware
Free (complementary) Anti Spyware downloads:
http://www.download.com/Ad-Aware-SE-Personal-Edit
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/mirrors/index.
Clean-up Tools:
HijackThis
LSPFIX
Your statement is totally offtopic, and completely untrue. The US will seek extradition of an American serviceman that went AWOL in Canada, and the Canadian government will be willing to hear their case for asylum, but unless the person faces death on return to the US (unlikely), they will lose the case and have to go back. This is because the US runs a volunteer military, so if you're AWOL, you are not fulfilling your legally binding contractual obligation.
On the other hand, if the US started drafting people to fight in Iraq, then since Canada has not declared war against Iraq, Canada would probably offer asylum to draft dodgers again.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
They don't swap files over IM, they don't click nonsense (they've learned the hard way), they don't use gnutella, etc...
Wanna trade families? :)
The parent isn't Flaimbait.... it's Funny!
The topic is one that should be on a help forum. Not on slashdot. If anything is flaimbait, it's the topic itsself.
Doesn't the Win XP firewall by default allow several things such as UPNP, etc....
A lot of that crap has had some major security flaws...
Just "enabling the firewall" isn't enough... This guy needs to go and make sure nothing is let in...
Well, I personally claim to not be infected, having no scanner, by looking at my running processes list. If there's something there that I don't recognize, I find out what it is or kill it. Sure, I wouldn't know if I had a rootkit or something, but a virus scanner wouldn't either. I know there's other ways of being infected, but the consequences of that are apparently not affecting me or my network, so I am willing to hazard that I'm probably not infected at all.
...it's a Microsoft operating system. It doesn't matter.
Oh, hang on, I'm drunk and you didn't mention Microsoft.
In that case, plug it in, dude. It's an operating system. It doesn't matter.
HTH
windows is horribly insecure, but aslong as you have av, as and sp2 on you should be alright. my main recomendation would be to use linux, some people have unupdated, clean, and unhacked boxes that have been running for the past 5 years, its a very secure os. perhaps get firefox to replace ie aswell, 1.5 just came out and its much better than ie, quick updates and tabbed browsing; and unlike ie its not integrated directly into windows.
according to SANS.
Do NOT play any Sony CDs until you get an update!! :-P
If it's a hardware firewall, just look at the flashy lights. They could be rooted by someone careful, sure - but there's nothing you can do to stop a sufficiently motivated and skillful attacker. If there was any run-of-the-mill virus/spyware on any of the machines I've done this with you'd notice.
I am trolling
Some laptops are easy to disassemble, some are hard. Call your laptop manufacturers tech support and ask them to walk you thru the procedure. I suggest you visit your local Fry's first and get a 7 piece set of jewelers/eyeglass/laptop repair screwdrivers with chip puller. (the chip puller is useful for removing those ingenious cable connecters which don't have pull straps -- specifically power connectors to the CPU fan.)
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Everyone here is freaking out. Reinstall is the same as not having updated in 9 months. Everyone who said make sure you do it behind a hardware firewall ain't kidding. Other than that, no need to re-install unless you think there's something on it (which isn't likely, seeing as you haven't connected it in 9 months!)
Steve
"What I want to know is this: Without a virus scanner, how do you know they are not infected?"
So... do you need a doctor to tell you are sick?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Turn on your windows firewall before connecting the network cable. For pre-SP1, right click your network connection, goto properties. Click advanced, and check the box. Alternatively, with SP2, there is a WINDOWS FIREWALL in the control panel. Once patched, using Firefox (or any non-ActiveX laden browser) will alliviate most major concerns about sites being able to rape your machine(or execute arbitrary code!)
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I would like to apologise for the anonymous idiot who has no appreciation for your bravery and dedication to preserving the anonymous idiot's inalienable constitutional right to be an anonymous idiot.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Buy a broadband router.
Since it naturally acts as a NAT gateway it will prevent 98% of exploits that can be initiated remotely.
hook up the computer and go through the update process for windows, and your antivirus software. (I would do windows updates first as it is entirely possible the anti-virus updates may require some of the patches too. especially if they are a few months old.)
Then after you've installed all your updates and you can safely leave the computer up and browse the Internet head on over to Red Hat, or some other Linux.... kidding... somewhat.
Buy a mac. Easier, and they have very nice laptops.
I am actually updating an old computer that hasn't been online for about 10 months when it has been in storage as we speak. It is a old PII 400 laptop running Windows 2000 SP4. (had to try 10 different passwords before I can log on..) Since this is pretty much a work computer for web and general Office stuff it has not been to any "funny" sites or anything. I am behind a Netgear router/"firewall" First thing I did was Windows UPdate. Gave me about 21 updates (about 25 mbs worth) and after reboot. I reinstalled Firefox (it was running 1.0), and I am pretty much good to go. The computer is too slow to be bothered with anti-virus programs and really, if you don't do anything stupid online. ("Lindsay Lohan nip slip CLICK HERE!!!") you are fine.
I built my brother a computer about a year ago and he was deployed to Iraq 4 months ago. When one of my systems died 2 nights ago, I set up his as a replacement. The first thing I did was get the Windows updates for the last 4 months (he religiously updated his system). Before the updates finished downloading, an internet worm had already infected the system. If it's a Windows computer, you might want to download the updates separately and put them on a CD.
~Ben
If you haven't been on the internet in a long time it is something you should be aware of. I thought I was a sophisticated XP user. I have ZoneAlarm, never click on anything in emails, and only install software from reputable companies. But I recently found a keylogger on my system. I forget what it was called, but it captures AOL logins. Fortunately, long ago I stopped using Windows for any online-banking, ecommerce, or anything else that has a password. For those I use FreeBSD with a good ipfilter ruleset.
I
Oh my gosh, you should through it away right now and go buy a Mac or Linux box. Don't even try to fix it because once you fix it, it will break in an hour.
The above is not worth reading.
but he commented, "but as I get closer to coming back to the States and my broadband connection, I'm beginning to wonder what the life expectancy of my PC will be." - hence my comment. ALL of the ideas above and below are useless for somebody confined to govPC protocols and access restrictions...
enjoy life, and Gmail.pro
the firewall shouldn't need updating unless a bug is found and even when they do they are pretty rarely exploited anyway.
the AV is just a second line of defense if your firewall crashes or you do something stupid or you download code from dubious sources its a non-issue if you are just connecting.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Doesn't the Win XP firewall by default allow several things such as UPNP, etc....
No. The WinXP SP1 firewall by default blocks UPNP, windows file and printer sharing, and most windows components you woulnd't want recieving connections from the internet. None of the major self-propigating exploits would have been possible if the WinXP firewall was on by default, even in SP1 form.
The SP2 firewall block all incomming services by default, prompting the user to allow them or not. The SP2 firewall does not block outgoing connections as most standalone firewalls do, but we aren't concerned about outgoing connections. We're concerned something might connect to use to infect us, hack us, etc before we can get the windows updates.
Iraq should last another couple of years, I'd guess.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
Strange thing is, I have a free virus scanner, and all the viruses it's found are email attachments in spam. Even if I didn't have one, it's pretty obvious what email attachments are unsafe, based on sender and file extension. I use Thunderbird but even Outlook Express will stop you running executable email attachments - VBS, SCR, EXE, PIF and so on.
I reckon the whole virus threat is hype quite frankly. And you can block 100% of current Windows exploits with the built in firewall. Once again, I'm overprotected since I have a NAT router as well.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Why waste all that brainpower typing in the same command twice. Or pressing the up arrow key? emerge -uvDa world Plus it saves you all that time that it would take to recalculate dependencies!
You can download SP2 from Microsoft and burn it to a disc for easy install without connecting to the net. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&displa ylang=en/
god bless you.
Just get back here alive, then update.
yes there is always some fresh Improvised Explosive Data lurking on random pages and attachments every week but as careful as you seem to be about stuff like that, you'd notice if you got infected....you DO have your firewall set to squawk if unexpected outbound traffic crops up, right?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Make sure you are behind a firewall. This should be enough until you can get all the updates. BTW,acoording to a couple of network security studies, a fresh copy of windows xp without any updates will be infested with virus/malwares/etc in about 5 minutes in unprotected network.
I suppose you believe in unicorns too? I mean how far up your butt did you have to reach to pull out the belief that people would be unable to post anonymously on slashdot if the the USA hadn't invaded Iraq? Are you really so mind bogglingly stupid that you believe that?
If you are that stupid. I'd like to see you string together a credible scenario based on solid observable facts in which a decision by the Bush administration to not invade Iraq would have resulted in people losing the ability to post anonymously on slashdot.
You apparently know at least more then the average computer user, so you shouldn't worry about it. I never really worry about it. I've plugged unpatched XP boxes to the Internet and done updates and such, downloaded SP2, etc. I've never really had any trouble. That's not to say you won't get something, but all the "Windows machines hacked in 6 minutes" seems overrated to me. I just don't see it happening under normal "non-major outbreak" days.
Obviously, I wouldn't LEAVE it unpatched and unprotected, but for just awhile so you can download updates, software, etc. Never had any trouble. I don't let the paranoia get to me.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
You can create programs that don't appear in the system list, without a root kit.
Not that I doubt your virus free.
I only run a virus check weekly, and I have yet to turn up anything.
I wish I could remove this anti-virus software from my system at work, it is a huge pain in the butt. Stupid bloatware.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you've used your computer for a good length of time, say over a year, you should be familiar with how fast it does things and what is or isn't normal.
Like the Parent, I ran my Win98SE machine completely unsecured by third party software and jacked straight into my cable modem. Never got pwned once. Now, maybe I can thank my ISP for that, but who knows.
What I do know is that virus scanners are very lame, as they take resources. As a gamer this is inexcuseable. However, viruses and malware take even more resources, so you should start to notice things going slower than they should. It's only when I noticed adverse system performance that I would boot up my virus scanner or adware remover.
This win98se install is going on 6 years old, having only suffered occasional reinstalls. (And if you install it right you can reinstall from windows/options/cabs) I've never understood the apparent myth of windows machines slowing with time, as I just found decent task manager replacesments (like Security Task Manager, a shareware of which can be found at tucows.com) and RAM decloggers(Dachsund software's Hare is my choice) were able to keep my system in the green.
Personally, Security Task Manager has been a godsend. If the standard windows task manager could kill and quarantine processes like that no windows machine would ever be pwned.
So, to the soldier I suggest Security Task Manager, and frankly, I don't think you need to listen to the alarmists here (All windows haters and definitely _not_ windows users) that say "OMG DONT BROWSE OR THEYLL GET J00 MAAAN" because if you boot to a trustworthy homepage (yahoo google slashdot etc...) and surf to another trustworthy page (tucows) you should be fine. Do the updates first anyways, but don't surf scared. Oh, and don't run internet explorer, cuz if you do you're already dead in the water.
What kind of an everyday job is invading another country and then torturing and killing the inhabitants? Fucking brain dead animals might consider it a job, but to most people it's an outrage.
Why I'm going to bother wasting my time replying to this is beyond me..... I'm in the USMC so I guess that would be my "everyday job" as you called it. However my everyday job is running a server, troubleshooting and providing network support in the USMC.... so if that's an outrage to you defiantly don't belong on Slashdot. Contary to the popular belief of some people in here, the miltary don't go around invading a country and killing random people to there need. If a Teacher hit a kid do you think all teachers go around hitting other kids? The people who think all teachers like that are
Fucking brain dead animals
Matt Vea wrote an interesting article about the security vulnerabilities you have with an OS out of the box. He covers just about all the OS's out there and incrementally patches them. Although the article is over a year old I think you will be suprised with how many holes there are on a system that hasn't been patched in awhile. http://www.omninerd.com/2004/08/30/articles/11
You can stay online for a long time provided that you follow certain basic guidelines
(1) Have a NAT in front of the computer. That is the most important
(2) Do not install unknown programs. For very obvious reasons.
(3) Do not use IE. IE was the biggest headache previously. I always get spyware whenever I run it.
(4) Do not use Outlook. I prefer webbased email anyway since I have like only 7 computers between work and home.
Following all these, my windows xp sp2 machine had not been patch since... sp2? Of course I upgrade my firefox version time and again, but then it not due to those supposed vulnerabilities which I rate as low importance. I even go without enable my AVG virus scanner for long period of time. I only run it once in a while to make sure that my system are indeed virus free.
Download the hotfixes from another computer and burn them to a CD or copy them to a USB drive. See this thread on the Microsoft Software Forum Network for a list of the hotfixes currently out in the wild:
8 6
/q /n and /z switches (except the mailicious software removal tool, which isn't really a "hotfix" per se). So put all the hotfixes in one folder, open a command prompt and then navigate to that folder and then get your i/o redirection groove on:
/b *.exe | ssed -e "s,$, /q /n /z," > InstallHotfixSilent.cmd
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=318
The page also lists the switches to specify to do a silent install, so once you've downloaded them all you can create a batch file to install them all, put the hotfixes and the batch file in a folder on a CD, insert CD, execute, get a snack, come back, your machine is now secure. huzzah!
Tip: If you have super sed ( http://sed.sf.net/grabbag/ssed/sed-3.59.zip ) Then you can make this batch file pretty easily. All of the hotfixes released after service pack 2 support the
dir
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
How does he know? Because system performance would be impacted, and nobody has complained that Celine Dion's CDs, and Van Zant's "Getting it right with the man" aren't working. In fact, they're playing just fine!
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
It sounds like this would be a good time to upgrade to Linux or FreeBSD. That will take care of your security worries. And since you're deployed for operation Iraqi Freedom, it seems especially appropriate to liberate your OS. :)
RTFA. He's in Iraq, not Vietnam.
Ahh. MY favorite spelling nazi.
I have a question for ya, It seems that everyone else in the slashdot compunity had no problem reading and comprehending his post. Why is it that a well educated grammar nazi can't. Is there some gene that makes you better then the rest? I guess not seeing how a couple spelling mistakes causes you so much pain. Is there some inherant IQ problem with the spelling nazi? I guess not seeing how everyone else could understand the post without writing some bable trying to degrade the poster.
Ah, thats it. You dislike the poster (*for whatever reason) and didn't have the currage to actualy corect his spelling mistakes so you decided to complain about somehtign. Maybe you are the manager of MCdonalds and that why he didn't get the job? well good luck. Maybe you could post back and really tell us whats up your ass.
I have 3 windows machines that havnt been updated in YEARS. And they wont be. They simply dont go on the internet, that simple. Install linux as a seperate partition and use that for online surfing, problem (and future problems) solved. BTW the side effect of this is that you find yourself rarely using windows, and when you do you realize just how god awful it really is.
I'm the same: Windows, linksys firewall, no virus protection software running, use IE but with an ad-rewriting proxy.
No viruses in the past five years.
How do I know? to I remotely log into my corporate network, they require eTrust antivirus to be turned on and have done a scan. So once every few months my computer gets an eTrust scan.
Were did he say anyhtign about iraq being the reason for being able to post anonymously? He didn't. Trees, meet the forest.
What he said is that in other countries, slashdot would be able to exist as it is today. Tell me it would exist in China or even England were free speech is a gift from the law or crown. The military helps the US and others keep these freedoms.
I remeber some international treaties a while back that would have limited free speech. It would have made stuff posted on the internet open to whatever internetional law that was availible. You could have effectivly been prosecuted in China for posting something in france from america and be held for it. We didn't sign on ot it and we were not pressured to do so like they presure third world nations to sign treaties. Why?, because of the military.
To spell it out in regular words. The GP said we enjoy what we do because we have a military that has done the things it has done. Not that the things by the military are done just so we can enjoy what we do. Iraq doesn't have anyhtign to do with this except it is one more thing being done.
Reasons for Iraq and it's effects are more complicated then can be discussed here. You are benifiting from them if you live in the US so we will leave it at that.
Most of the worms and exploits that take down a fresh installed windows box in less then 10 minutes can be blocked by a firewall/router. This is sound advice.
I wouldn't trust it as my only protection, but to get updates and fixes, it would be one of the better aproaches. For my linux boxes, I usualy mirror the updates localy and then do the updates from inside a closed network before i expose them to the rest of the world. I know there isn't too many automated exploits but i get to have copies of updates this way that last longer then the production value of the distro. I'm not sure how you could do this on windows without running that update thing on a 2003 AD domain. Most users cannot get this function.
Dude, have you ever heard the expression, "Don't feed the trolls?" You're making yourself look like an idiot.
YHBT, HAND.
As for me, I support at least, like, half our troops.
They are turkeys, and in election after election after election they vote for Thanksgiving.
1) Use a different computer
2) go to http://www.zonelabs.com/
3) resist the many links to ZoneAlarm Pro that you will be offered
4) Get standard ZoneAlarm which is free
5) Burn installer to CD or use USB stick to transfer to laptop
6) Install on laptop
7) Connect to web, and be paranoid about what you allow to connect, Deny most everything, but do not choose "always do this".
8) If something vital fails to work, it needed the Internet. Since you did not check "always do this", you can do the same thing again and be asked again about connecting. Let it through this time.
9) Download your updates with relative security.
Works for me anyway, the one time I skipped ZoneAlarm before connecting, I got a OS dialog informing me my "registry was corrupt" and they could fix it if only I visited their site. This was XP SP1 and about 12 minutes online while I was downloading patches from M$...
PS - Thanks for your service. You fought for me, the least I can do is help you fight spyware and other digital nastiness...
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
You bought your laptop. You updated and installed antivirus software and antivirus update immediately?
And that was good enough?
If immediate updating and accepting exposure simply during the duration of updating then was good enough for you, what's changed? I trust you're going to update your anti virus definitions and windows updates before doing anything else? How is this really all that different to that period?
If anything, you've at least got anti virus software running now, albeit 9 months behind the times, that you likely didn't have when you bought the laptop.
Yes, there's a risk. I'm not going to pretend there isn't. The point is, it's no different a risk to the one you've taken in the past.
If you want, sure, go buy a hardware firewall (honestly, they're so cheap it's hard to justify not doing so). Install Linux instead of Windows. Make sure it's a nice secure flavor. Close off all the ports you don't specifically need. Maybe even build a first Linux box to act as a second firewall between your hardware firewall and your main Linux box. Patch daily, etc.
Alternatively that's all a pain in the ass and simply doing an initial update puts you at no more risk than you've already accepted in the past. The $50 firewall options make sense in terms of cost vs. reward but, beyond that, the main point remains:
An initial update is no worse than (and possibly quite a bit more secure than) the one I'm assuming you did when you first bought the laptop. If it was good enough then, what's changed?
Of course, high IQ, obsessive compulsive, geek types who get warm fuzzy feelings about complex solutions probably won't agree as it's a far less exciting or obsessive method. But it doesn't change that it was good enough for you in the past, does it?
A while ago I unburied an old dual Pentium Pro monster; and, for the hell of it I tried to install Windows 2000 Server on it. Got the RAID array rebuilt, the OS installed, and the system hanging out connectected to the 'net between the external bridge and the firewall's WAN port. Done because this beast was not allowed in the house and the easiest way to get ethernet to the garage was unprotected. I proceeded to lose interest in it for a few weeks; and, though I could RDP into it from the outside at will, there was nothing unpleasant on it at all. This is with the OS only, no ISA server, no AV software, nothing but a basic Admin account password. Of course, the system was not being browsed on, used as a mail client, anything; but, I do question the premise that just an IP connection is a sure road to malware hell.
WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
If the system has been hardened and unnecessary services and features diabled, it can go months, even years without a patch or update. If the system is configured according to "consumer defaults" a few days may be too long.
As others have indicated, update ASAP when you return. If you need certain specific service packs or anti virus updates, you can also download them onto another machine (perhaps a friend's) which has been updated all along, and run them from CD before connecting to the net.
A properly hardened system is immune to the vast majority of exploits; a system which hasn't been hardened isn't necessarily safe even if updated daily.
1. Observable fact #1: The Bush administration is willing to accuse Iraq of a lot of crimes for which they have found no evidence, even after occupying the country for several years (nuclear arms, al Qaeda cooperation, etc.)
2. Observable fact #2: The Bush administration is willing to turn the US into an economically segregated National Security State in order to meet its goals. (tax cuts for rich, benefits cuts for poor, patriot act, detention of American citizens without charge for years, etc).
Now, given those two observable facts, and your hypothesis that Bush decided not to invade Iraq (good thing you didn't ask me to come up with a credible explanation for that, that would have been tough) we can conclude:
Any event that results in harm to the US (Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, Red Sox victories, etc) could easily be blamed on Iraq, even without evidence. The search for 'fellow travelers' in the USA heats up, as the Bush administration tries desperately to locate the Secret Al-Qaeda Hurricane-causing Technology -- Before It Strikes Again! Clearly, the solution is to reduce civil liberties, So We Can Stop The Terrorists. Anonymous activity of all kinds, including posting to Slashdot, is outlawed, so people who foment discord by posting ridiculous hypotheticals can more easily be caught and convicted, and perhaps even charged and tried in court as well.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Dr. Kevorkian never took himself to a mental hospital. Not to say that he wasn't pretty messed up, though. And I'm sure the average person doesn't know the symptoms of HIV well enough to know whether or not he/she has it.
Just because your computer isn't slowing down or anything doesn't mean you don't have a virus. I had a computer once with a boot-sector virus, and I ran it for a year or so without knowing until one day I tried to transfer some files on a floppy disk from that PC to another, and the other PC said the floppy had the virus on it.
Funny thing is that the infected PC had an antivirus program made by - guess who! - Microsoft, called MS Anti-Virus for Windows.
www.linuxpenguin.net
All laptops that are used in Iraq don't need any protection. There will always be a wall of fire around you. That is what they called Firewall.
Monkeys everywhere. Vi Monkeys, Shellscript monkeys, Java Monkeys, PERL monkeys
If you are, I was in much th same situation as you were. 12 months over there and getting updates was hard. If you get over there around balad AFB, PM me and I can get you some inside info on where to get updates, if the layout hasn't changed that much since April.
With that said, like everyone else said, get behind a firewall. Let autoupdates run, update AV and spyware defs, and then just to be safe, get off the network and scan away.
If it weren't for that genuine advantage stuff you could probably go to the corporate deployment section of windows updates and get the patches saved to a jump drive. Of course if you're hopping around those segovia sat connections your time will probably run out before you could get one update saved.
One last option, go to the education center and hang out there alot. Eventually the teacher will give you the go-ahead to do some upadtes, if they are pretty cool. Of course if you are really near getting home, don't worry about it, stay safe, and get back over here in one piece!
take care!
-- this space for rent --
I don't know much about Dr. Kevorkian, but from what I read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Kevorkian (granted not the most accurate source) he seems like a perfect normal man. But of course in this country with so many loony religious people anybody that doesn't have their principles is deranged.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
The guy is a soldier and he comes back from service. That is what they call the chore of working for US military. They pack them to Iraq or Iran or wherever the Defence industry tells the president to go to. Service Pack ! How many services one can get? According to the caretaker industry, you get only one. One service per person. Laptop should get a servic pack ! Cool !
Monkeys everywhere. Vi Monkeys, Shellscript monkeys, Java Monkeys, PERL monkeys
Four weeks, three days, six hours, twenty-two minutes and fifty-four seconds.
You've been in IRAQ and you're worried about a VIRUS on your box? You have balls of steel my friend...
1. Get behind a firewall/router
2. Configure your IE to use a public Squid proxy to download MS updates (I have my own Squid setup at home - and also a portable vmware Squid server - which also blocks ads and other nasty content.)
--Note: You will want to set this up in advance, since registration can take up to (4) hours; but in my case it was pretty quick.
http://www.ircache.net/FAQ/
( See section 2.2, and especially 2.5 )
http://www.ircache.net/ == Full frames version
--You have to send them your email, then it auto-registers you; it will be necessary to enter a username and password to authenticate yourself to the cache initially before you can browse. BTW, it doesn't handle secure connections; this is mentioned in the FAQ section 3.4. But it should be a good additional buffer against outside attacks.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
I have a similar setup, except that I did install all of the IE updates (but I also closed the loopholes like port 195 (or whatever it was (the DCOM external port)), etc., and I don't use IE itself to surf the web (Moz + Junkbuster)).
Also, I have all scripting disabled, including JavaScript/ECMAScript, which appears to be responsible for 99.99999999% of Mozilla bugs.
My machine has never been infected (well, I accidentally installed some spyware in 2001 or 2002, but I was able to remove it without any problems), and I have never had to reinstall MS-Windows 95.
It's entirely possible for you to have an infection-free machine running 20th-century software, as long as you don't do anything stupid, and as long as you have all of the risky bits (e.g., scripting) turned off.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
And wishing that *China* were in charge, as it were, of world affairs isn't reflective of anything but the wholesale ignorance of the person or entity that wishes it.
There's a term used to describe people who believe "if anyone disagrees with me, even the majority of people in the world, then they're automatically wrong." It's 'hubris'. Did you even stop and consider that perhaps they might have valid views backing that up, or did you just instinctively assume "they must all be ignorant"?
decade
An arbitrary time point just to demonstrate the degree of change. The most extreme example's required time period depends on the specific issue - for example, top tax brackets would be compared to the period from World War II to the late 1960s, when they were almost 90% (they fell to under 30% by the end of Reagan's term, rose somewhat under clinton, then fell back down under Bush).
no different than any shifts that have occurred
Exactly. The US *Has* shifted radically over its history, in case you forgot. Remember slavery? Remember when our government's income was due to tarriffs and land sales? Remember when witchcraft was illegal in much of the US? Need I keep going?
not sure what you're getting at
Do you not know what bracketted taxation is? Then what are you doing in this debate? Lets back up to income taxes 101.
For most of the US's history, there were no income taxes. However, a growing movement in the late 1800s as backlash against "robber barons" (the same movement that eventually led to antitrust laws), and the decrease in traditional income sources for the US government, led to the first income taxes. Income taxes initially only affected the rich; eventually more and more of the population was included, but the rich kept getting higher percentile rates.
The purpose of income taxes, and specificially *bracketted* income taxes (where people fall into a given tax bracket based on their total income) is as an equalizer without destroying the motive to work - and by all standards, it's been an astounding success. Income taxes for the top bracket peaked during World War II, but only fell slightly after that, to just under 90%. They remained this way until the late 1960s - our nation's greatest boom time. The poor barely payed any income tax. During the 1970s, the top bracket fell, but remained above 70%. Under reagan, it plummetted to under 30%, only to raise under Clinton and fall under Bush II.
The flatter the tax, the less of an equalizer it is. The more bracketted, the more of an equalizer it is. This is known as a "flat tax structure" and a "progressive tax structure" respectively. Bracketted taxes can be better thought of in terms of a tax on luxury. Picture the following scenario: there is no income tax. Instead, all taxes are on purchase. The highest tax rates are on items of luxury, while the lowest rates are on items of necessity. The poor, simply not being able to afford much if any luxury, end up averaging a very low tax rate. The wealthy, simply not able to spend even a sizable fraction of their money on necessity, end up paying a very high tax rate. Now picture this shifted back to the income side: you have the bracketted tax structure.
You really ought to already know all of this if you're going to talk about economics...
How has global warming stance changed?
Clinton: Signed the Kyoto protocol; spoke regularly about the need to stop global warming
Bush: Unsigned the Kyoto protocol. First denied any global warming, then admitted it but downplayed human effect on it.
Summary: Complete Opposites.
Just because a jurist believes...
Hold! We're talking about the poltical stances and political momentum at the highest levels of the country. Clinton fought *for* abortion rights, and worked to stack the supreme court with pro-choice judges. Bush has fought *against* abortion rights, and worked to stack the court with pro-life judge
They are turkeys, and in election after election after election they vote for Thanksgiving.
Pretty much forever? This idiot does realise that "PC" is a term linked to the Intel/AMD/x86/etc hardware platform and not windows, right?
Even mac is going to be on "PC" next year. How about you start buying up some clues and whoring them away so you'll be ready?
The Farewell Tour II
one point needs to be called out. the challenge with a flat tax is that, while high income earners will pay more in actual dollars, low income earners will pay more as a percentage of their income -- as they spend a higher percentage of their income than high income earners. which is a negative impact on low income workers, and why flat taxes are generally considered to be regressive.
go get it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dude, you're living in Iraq. If I were you, I'd be slightly more concerned about getting blown up or my head getting sawn off rather than my laptop getting infected with a virus.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously, man. Troll about something else.
Then perhaps you're not aware that one of the things a doctor has to do before he can get his license and be called a doctor is to promise that he will do whatever he can to save his patient and that he will not kill his patients.
This isn't just an American thing. This promise has been around since the days of Aristotle.
And would you trust a doctor to heal you who just killed nine or ten other patients - on purpose? What's to stop him from killing you and then saying that you wanted to die?
www.linuxpenguin.net
So let's clear this up, for the record. Do YOU think the world would be better off if the Chinese government were in charge of world affairs?
An arbitrary time point just to demonstrate the degree of change. The most extreme example's required time period depends on the specific issue - for example, top tax brackets would be compared to the period from World War II to the late 1960s, when they were almost 90% (they fell to under 30% by the end of Reagan's term, rose somewhat under clinton, then fell back down under Bush).
Do you not know what bracketted taxation is? Then what are you doing in this debate? Lets back up to income taxes 101.
No, I know what tax brackets are, thanks, (though you appear to be the only person to refer to it as "bracketted taxation"). And by "I don't know what you're getting at, here," I thought I made myself clear with the link I posted, which I guess I'll have to post again. As I said, the difference is even more dramatic now. Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.
So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor?
If you're going to respond to this, please do so directly, as I did.
Clinton: Signed the Kyoto protocol; spoke regularly about the need to stop global warming
Bush: Unsigned the Kyoto protocol. First denied any global warming, then admitted it but downplayed human effect on it.
Summary: Complete Opposites.
"Unsigned." That's rich. Bush didn't "unsign" anything. Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol, which does nothing until it's submitted for ratification. We are still a signatory of the protocol (which means we support the basic tenets of it in principle), and it has still not been submitted for ratification. Literally no change from Clinton. Our position can be summed up as follows:
This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. . . . America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. . . . . Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. (Ref)
In other words, it's unfair if other nations - like, oh, the second largest consumer of petroleum products and the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and the one who is angling to become the world's next superpower and will essentially be in direct comp
I only hope you'll not get into condition to ask other people to help you to die.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
1. If you're already running WindowsXP with service pack 2, and you haven't turned off the firewall (it's on by default), then as long as the very first thing you do with your computer when you connect it to the internet is to download your windows updates, you're fine. (You can check which version of windows you have by going to the Start menu, then clicking "Run...", then typing in winver. A dialog should pop up, and the line that starts with "Version 5.1..." should say "Service Pack 2" at the end. If it doesn't, then you don't have service pack 2.) 2. If you have windows xp, but don't have service pack 2, you can download service pack 2 on another computer, burn it to a cd, copy it to your laptop and install it. Then see step #1. :-) (Since it's a pain to track down, I tracked it down - you can download the service pack 2 update as a single file here - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&displa ylang=en )
3. If you have a non-XP version of windows, you should be behind some sort of firewall. If you have broadband access at home, and connect through a router, that should be fine. Otherwise, perhaps you could start your computer in "Safe mode with networking" (I believe you hit F8 while your computer is booting up, then it will prompt you to choose how you want to start your computer). This might avoid starting up most of those vulnerable services that get attached, so you might be safe. I haven't tried this though, so I have no idea if this would actually work.
Good luck!
You cling to a technicality "the promise to do whatever to save patient life". Human beings have the duty (or at least the right) to help each other and no technicality or vow, not matter how ancient should stop them.
Why would I trust a doctor that doesn't want to help people in need? Why would I trust a doctor that would let other people suffer phisically or mentally without helping them when they asked him for help?
I really don't know his story, he might have killed people that didn't want to die just to get their money, but assuming that's not the case I don't have anything to reproach to people that help other people in their wish to die. It's written even in American Constitution although people don't want or don't know to interpret it: "right to pursue happiness": people in pain have the right to pursue happiness even if that means that they want to end their phisical or mental pain by suicide.
Again, I hope neither of us to get into this situation, but if you do you that might change your view about what you want, about doctor promises and in general about right and wrong, it's funny how people change their "principles" when THEY are the ones that need/want something.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
1. If you're already running WindowsXP with service pack 2, and you haven't turned off the firewall (it's on by default), then as long as the very first thing you do with your computer when you connect it to the internet is to download your windows updates, you're fine. (You can check which version of windows you have by going to the Start menu, then clicking "Run...", then typing in winver. A dialog should pop up, and the line that starts with "Version 5.1..." should say "Service Pack 2" at the end. If it doesn't, then you don't have service pack 2.)
2. If you have windows xp, but don't have service pack 2, you can download service pack 2 on another computer, burn it to a cd, copy it to your laptop and install it. Then see step #1. :-) (Since it's a pain to track down, I tracked it down - you can download the service pack 2 update as a single file here - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&displa ylang=en )
3. If you have a non-XP version of windows, you should be behind some sort of firewall. If you have broadband access at home, and connect through a router, that should be fine. Otherwise, perhaps you could start your computer in "Safe mode with networking" (I believe you hit F8 while your computer is booting up, then it will prompt you to choose how you want to start your computer). This might avoid starting up most of those vulnerable services that get attached, so you might be safe. I haven't tried this though, so I have no idea if this would actually work.
Good luck!
Helping people to die is called hospice. Assisted suicide is not helping people to die, it's killing them/letting them kill themselves. Dr. Kevorkian didn't help people to have an easier death, he killed them.
www.linuxpenguin.net
You wouldn't. People with mental problems should see a psychiatrist, and people with physical problems should see a doctor. Dr. Kevorkian didn't help anyone, he just killed them. Helping to ease the pain of someone who is going to die is called hospice. What Kevorkian did is called assisted suicide.
"It's written even in American Constitution although people don't want or don't know to interpret it: "right to pursue happiness": people in pain have the right to pursue happiness even if that means that they want to end their phisical or mental pain by suicide."
Yes, they do. Obviously. There's no way they could enforce otherwise - what do you do to punish someone who commits suicide - they're dead already.
Does that mean the doctor has the right to kill them? If people want to die, they should be calling an executioner, not a doctor. How will we ever know if these people actually wanted to commit suicide - or that they wouldn't have changed their minds later? They're dead, it's not like we can ask them if they wanted to die.
If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Or would you try to get him some help through his rough times?
www.linuxpenguin.net
"Assisted suicide is not helping people to die
Assisted suicide is helping people to die no matter how you turn the definition around. If you want to die and someone assist you it means that he helps you to die.
"killing" is a loaded word -- if you say that someone killed another person you immediately think that that person didn't want to die. The one who kills is not considered automatically "killer" just because "killer" is a loaded term, for example solders are not called "killers" (only by peace activist) although they do kill, also people that execute convicted criminals are not called killers. So apparently it matter what is the cause and what is the situation in which someone "kills" or helps someone to end his life... Anyway, I would say that there is a big difference between killing and helping someone to end his life.
I happen to believe that people should be free to pursue their happiness and be free to act, even hire help to end their life no matter what is the reason for their wish, you happen to believe that people should not be allowed freedoms and to have limited freedom when it comes to such a basic private decision: to live or die. We disagree, that's perfect -- I only wished you'd not try to impose your moral (or whatever you call it) view on other people, for example I don't think it should be your business at all if I want to die or not, nor the reason why I'd want it. You should understand that you don't have a vote in that, you don't get to decide my future. (BTW, if you were to take this kind of decision would you like me to or somebody else to have a sayin in it?) Moreover, if I wanted to die, I'd wish to be helped by someone who knows what is doing and not suffer unnecessarily -- doctors are probably the best for this purpose, but I wouldn't mind if there would be specialized people and not medics (if it's against their principle) who would do this kind of job.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
So let's clear this up, for the record. Do YOU think the world would be better off if the Chinese government were in charge of world affairs?
;) On the other hand, where I mentioned what the term is generally called (progressive taxation) gets plenty of hits.
:) So, in short, when you stated that we spend "a whopping 36% on social security", you now admit that you were BSing by ignoring that the line item you're citing is actually Social Security + Medicare (the two biggest social programs, combined). Bush's plan for social security, by the way, was essentially the first step in the standard conservative plan to get rid of Social Security - first get private accounts, then divest the government of the accounts. It failed, but not fo
No. That doesn't change the fact that it's hubris to automatically assume that those who do are simply "ignorant".
only person [google.com] to refer to it as "bracketted taxation"
That's simply because the word "bracketted" isn't used very much by itself
which I guess I'll have to post again
No, you don't; I saw it the first time, and I just explained *why* they pay a higher rate, which you seem to have ignored. It's the equivalent of charging a higher sales tax rate for luxury - they're being taxed at a higher rate because they spend more on luxury spending. And if they don't spend their money on luxury - say, they give it to charity? That's what deductions are for. What about this do you have a problem with? Do you think that luxury spending shouldn't be a higher tax-rate item than necessity spending?
In fact, they're getting off easy. They may be one percent of the population, but they have 40% of the nation's wealth. The top 5% have 60% of the wealth. I.e., even with our progressive tax structure, they still get away with not paying more for their luxury spending; the numbers argue for *sharper* brackets.
How is this fair?
What are they spending on luxury? Almost nothing. About the only "luxury" the poor generally buy are vices (cigarettes, etc), which are heavily sales taxed. If you agree that necessity should have little to no tax and luxury should be highly taxed, then this is a good thing. If not, why do you believe that luxury shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than necessity?
"Unsigned." That's rich. Bush didn't "unsign" anything.
It's a common term that you've apparently never heard.
Our position can be summed up as follows
No, *Bush's* position was as followed. That was not Clinton's position. That was an about-shift position. And I'll note here that you completely ignored the speeches and publications by the respective administrations on the subject of climate change.
So you don't believe in a balance of philosophical views on the court?
So you admit that the people that they're appointing are complete opposites on this issue?
how is that a "radical shift" in the prevailing conditions in the nation?
It is a radical shift in the *policy*. Thank god our nation takes so long to get permanent changes accomplished in, but it's not for a lack of trying.
No, we're talking about your allegation (one might say your "personal opinion") that social programs have ostensibly suffered in the last "decade" (or, to be more accurate, we might just not mince words and say "since the day Bush entered office).
I seriously suggest that you back up and read my original post, in which I stated that Clinton and Bush's policies on the subject were opposites.
35% - Social security, Medicare, and other retirement
Aha
They are turkeys, and in election after election after election they vote for Thanksgiving.
First, let me say: I love your quoting style, which allows you to ignore the things you don't want to respond to. I don't do that to you.
;) On the other hand, where I mentioned what the term is generally called (progressive taxation) gets plenty of hits.
No. That doesn't change the fact that it's hubris to automatically assume that those who do are simply "ignorant".
Has it struck you that the majority of people may not be correct, whether or not they're "ignorant"? And assuming "most of the world" would prefer that China be in charge in the stead of the US, does that mean one should automatically assume "Gee, we must be doing something wrong because people wish that a brutal Communist regime were in charge of world affairs"?
That's simply because the word "bracketted" isn't used very much by itself
Yes, fine. And we already have, and still do have, progressively increasing taxation. Whether it's not as much as you'd like, well, that's apparently the point of contention.
No, you don't; I saw it the first time, and I just explained *why* they pay a higher rate, which you seem to have ignored. It's the equivalent of charging a higher sales tax rate for luxury - they're being taxed at a higher rate because they spend more on luxury spending. And if they don't spend their money on luxury - say, they give it to charity? That's what deductions are for. What about this do you have a problem with? Do you think that luxury spending shouldn't be a higher tax-rate item than necessity spending?
I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm pointing out that that's *currently the way it is*. The bottom third already pay *no tax*.
So I ask again: let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we shifted the less-than-3% of the federal tax burden that the bottom 50% of taxpayers now pay to the top 50% (interestingly, that's where it's headed anyway, as the bottom 50% has paid less of the total tax burden for the last decade).
And, for the sake of argument, let's also say we eliminate sales tax on anything that costs below, say, $10000. Then what?
The poor would *still* be poor. They *still* would be struggling. The bottom 1/3 *already pay no tax*. The bottom half, in total, pay *less than 3% of the tax burden*. And you're saying that the wealthy are *getting off easy*? Oh, man. I really don't know what to say.
In fact, they're getting off easy. They may be one percent of the population, but they have 40% of the nation's wealth. The top 5% have 60% of the wealth. I.e., even with our progressive tax structure, they still get away with not paying more for their luxury spending; the numbers argue for *sharper* brackets.
So are you arguing for increasing the overall federal tax intake as well? Because the top 50% already pay over 97% of the tax. The top 5% pay over 60%. If you're arguing that they should pay *more*, fine, but I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. If we magically had a system where the top 5% paid 100% of the federal tax burden, would that be fair to you? What's the cutoff for when people should pay no tax, when the bottom third already pay none?
[Re: "Unsigned"] It's a common term that you've apparently never heard [cnn.com].
Hm. First of all, your link puts the term "unsign" in quotes, too.
Even better is that your link proves exactly what I just said, which is that the US "unsigned" nothing: we're still a Kyoto signatory, and it's still not ratified. I.e., no change.
No, *Bush's* position was as followed. That was not Clinton's position. That was an about-shift position. And I'll note here that you completely ignored the speeches and publications by the respective administrations on the subject of climate change.
It's seems that you'd have the level of ignorance you accuse me of on any policy speeches, as the Bush administration isn't pro-global warming. However, they correctly believe that global warming isn't due exclusively and only t
"7? Yes." should of course read "2? Yes."
Are you suggesting that people killed by American soldiers wanted to die?
By the way, even though soldiers are trained on how to kill, many of them never kill anyone. They're there to fight, not necessarily to kill. The Army is one of the largest employers in the US - if every soldier killed someone (or even if most of them did) there'd be a lot more people dying in Iraq.
"I happen to believe that people should be free to pursue their happiness and be free to act, even hire help to end their life no matter what is the reason for their wish, you happen to believe that people should not be allowed freedoms and to have limited freedom when it comes to such a basic private decision: to live or die."
Not true. I believe that people have the right to die if they want to, but I also believe that executioners should be properly labeled. Dr. Kevorkian really wasn't a doctor at all - doctors try to heal their patients. I'd have no problem if he called himself a "suicide expert" or something - if he weren't in the news, how would I know that he kills his patients? What if I were in town and got in a bad car accident?
Doctors make mistakes. Sometimes surgeries have gone bad, and I'm sure doctors with lots of patients have gotten things mixed up. You can sue a doctor who cuts off your leg mistaking you for the patient with the bad leg; not so when he mistakes you for the guy who was suicidal.
I have no problem with others wishing to die. I have a problem with a doctor killing people because as far as we know, some of these people might not have wanted to die and thought they were going to see a normal doctor.
www.linuxpenguin.net
If people want to die, they should be calling an executioner, not a doctor.
I agree partially, if there would be executioners that would do the job profesionally and w/o inflicting pain, but since doctors know more about human body they could help better, actually it would be nice to have some good poison available at farmacies if there would be a guarantee that it wouldn't be used on other people.
How will we ever know if these people actually wanted to commit suicide - or that they wouldn't have changed their minds later?
It's very easy to know what people want, just ask them. Only because people have to hide it's not easy to know what they wanted. As for if they'd changed their mind afterwards, it's kind of useless to ask, they should think before they do something irreversible.
If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him?
Wouldn't you? What kind of friend would you be if you could not help a friend in need? If he wasn't even able to pull a trigger I'd imagine that he would be in terrible shape. If he could pull the trigger I imagine that he would not ask you to do it for him.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Are you suggesting that people killed by American soldiers wanted to die?
By the way, even though soldiers are trained on how to kill, many of them never kill anyone. They're there to fight, not necessarily to kill. The Army is one of the largest employers in the US - if every soldier killed someone (or even if most of them did) there'd be a lot more people dying in Iraq."
No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm only making a comment on the usage of the word "killer" and its loaded meaning. Executioner in this case is probably better although it doens't completly alude to the fact that the death was asked by the "executed". Probably "suicide expert" as you put it is better.
"I also believe that executioners should be properly labeled. Dr. Kevorkian really wasn't a doctor at all - doctors try to heal their patients. I'd have no problem if he called himself a "suicide expert" or something - if he weren't in the news, how would I know that he kills his patients? What if I were in town and got in a bad car accident?"
So, you have problems with labels... that's like saying that a "cleaning person" cannot help catch a thief because it's not specified in the title. Well, for what is worth I wouldn't mind if there would be "suicide experts" around.
"I have a problem with a doctor killing people because as far as we know, some of these people might not have wanted to die and thought they were going to see a normal doctor."
I agree with you, if that's true. For this discussion I started from the assumption that they did want to die, since I don't know much about the case and facts I allowed myself to use an assumption. So for me it's pretty clear if they wanted to die the guy didn't do anything wrong (in my view, not in the law's view), if they didn't than he is a criminal who deserves to be punished.
I believe that if sucide would be permited and there would be specialized people around the sucide rate would fall down. Also, there would be a clear procedure that would show clearly what is the intent of the person without any reason of doubt.
There are other moral considerents that people don't consider always: why would somebody who doesn't want to live continue to consume resources when there are enough people in the world who die because of hunger or lack of medicines.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
But they're dead - I can't ask them.
"Wouldn't you? What kind of friend would you be if you could not help a friend in need? If he wasn't even able to pull a trigger I'd imagine that he would be in terrible shape. If he could pull the trigger I imagine that he would not ask you to do it for him."
Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. The whole quote was "If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Or would you try to get him some help through his rough times?
The last line suggests that he will get better.
www.linuxpenguin.net
But they're dead - I can't ask them.
People express their wishes before they die. Only if they are in a comma they cannot but even then in some cases they have a will for that kind of situation.
Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. The whole quote was "If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Or would you try to get him some help through his rough times?
The last line suggests that he will get better
So you take the liberty to torture somebody in the hope they would get better? You might be wrong too. Yes, it's sad if people are wrong in this kind of cases (btw, in case you did't know, we all die eventually) but it's THEIR responsibility it's not my, your or state's responsibility.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
First, let me say: I love your quoting style, which allows you to ignore the things you don't want to respond to.
Pardon me for not being one of those kind of jerks who feels the need to quote almost every word from the parent posts, when the post is right above them.
I don't do that to you.
I wish you wouldn't spam me with my own words. All I need to do is scroll up to read what I typed earlier. It's a simple kindness.
Has it struck you that the majority of people may not be correct, whether or not they're "ignorant"?
Has it struck you that the majority of people may not be ignorant, whether or not they're correct? That's my point, that you immediately assumed ignorance, as opposed to a disagreement over the importance of weighting various factors. Most people are well aware of both the US's history and China's. China has been (despite popular American misconceptions) a very nonmilitarized state, with little overseas military involvement, and that rings quite popular with much of the world. They equally know about Tibet, lack of domestic civil liberties, etc. They weigh this against the US's extreme overseas interventionist policies, CIA involvement in other countries' coups and elections, and the sort of treaties that the US tries to force on others with its economic and military might, and while it's close, more side with China. You and I may disagree, but simply calling them "ignorant" because they don't agree with you is pure hubris.
And assuming "most of the world" would prefer that China be in charge in the stead of the US, does that mean one should automatically assume "Gee, we must be doing something wrong because people wish that a brutal Communist regime were in charge of world affairs"?
It's a heck of a good clue!
The poor would *still* be poor. They *still* would be struggling.
Quite true. That's where social services come in; they're effectively negative taxation, but generally work better than welfare because they can only apply to necessities. Also, just to clear this up: are you trying to argue that because they're already struggling with little to no taxes, we should raise their rate? I certainly hope not.
And you're saying that the wealthy are *getting off easy*?
Compared to America during its largest economic boom in history, they're getting off *incredibly* easily. And I say this as the daughter of a president of Shell Oil who has benefitted from their income greatly during my life.
So are you arguing for increasing the overall federal tax intake as well?
Yes. Not a huge increase, but a small increase, perhaps 30% greater total receipts, coupled with a cut in defense spending and the elimination of most of our continually-renewed supplementals (like our wars), with the money used to fund things like universal healthcare, greater education and disaster preparedness funding, and greater basic scientific research.
What's the cutoff for when people should pay no tax, when the bottom third already pay none?
No *income* tax. Many of them pay payroll taxes, and even those that don't generally have to pay local taxes. Almost nobody gets away with no taxes (especially sales)
Hm. First of all, your link puts the term "unsign" in quotes, too.
I never claimed it was a technical term.
Even better is that your link proves exactly what I just said, which is that the US "unsigned" nothing: we're still a Kyoto signatory, and it's still not ratified. I.e., no change.
It's not submitted for ratification; that's the change. The Clinton Administration was working to get it ratified; the Bush administration used what is effectively a pocket veto on it.
It's seems that you'd have the level of ignorance you accuse me of on any policy speeches, as the Bush administration isn't pro-global warming.
It's "do little to nothing about it", which is the exact opposite of Clinton's policy. What,
They are turkeys, and in election after election after election they vote for Thanksgiving.
Thank you for your kind responses on this topic.
I will take your statements under consideration, as I always do with differing statements.
(And yes, it was a mistake of me to say *only* social security in my first response; as I said, I was writing quickly, and "Social Security" is the major feature of that budget category. I intended no deception. Further, I don't think that those budget groupings are pointless, considering they're the same simplified groupings that the Treasury uses under Republican and Democratic administrations alike to communicate spending.)
That doesn't help me any. I wasn't there for the "suicide" - I don't know if these people really wanted to die or not. And if they had no idea they were going to die (ie, if Dr. Kevorkian killed them and they thought he was going to heal them), they wouldn't have expressed their death wishes.
"So you take the liberty to torture somebody in the hope they would get better? You might be wrong too. Yes, it's sad if people are wrong in this kind of cases (btw, in case you did't know, we all die eventually) but it's THEIR responsibility it's not my, your or state's responsibility."
No. I don't want people to suffer in the hope that they get better, but I don't think it's right to kill people when there's a good chance that they will get better.
If a man is severely injured in a car accident and wants to die because he is in so much pain but has a 75% chance of making a full recovery, should you kill him? I'm sure he's in an immense amount of pain and will be for a while, and it will probably take him years to recover. But if odds are that he will live, I say we shouldn't kill him.
www.linuxpenguin.net
Use a soho firewall/router and put your computer behind it.
Why should the governemtn provide so many social services to the poor at the expense of others? The rich have earned (by this I mean aquired legally) their money. It is theirs. I certainly think they should pay taxes towards the military and law enforcement, because it protects them. But why should they be forced to give their money to other people? It is theirs . If you work hard and get an education and good job you will be able to get by with your income. Why should you then be forced to pay for someone who made stupid decisions? I guess since you were entitled to a lot of money due to your family, you feel it is unfair for you, or any other wealthy person, to have as much money as you do. As for reducing military spending, I haven't done any real research on it, and there are probably areas we can reduce spending, the US needs a strong military. I also believe you should be able to opt out of social security. It's your money. You should be able to invest/save/waste, it as much as you want. Universal health care? Why shouldn't you be expected to pay for it yourself? Someone has to.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
"I don't know if these people really wanted to die or not. "
And yet you have a very clear idea who is guilty and who is not. I don't know either, I'm only saying if they wanted to die than he's not guilty in my eyes, if they didn't than he's guilty (not that I care too much about him, I think we discussed too much the guy).
but I don't think it's right to kill people when there's a good chance that they will get better.
The issue is to let people take the decision for their own life. Even if one guy is 99.99% healthy if the guy wants to die I think you have no right to oppose it, it's he's decision to make. You can tell him to think over, you can give him advice, you can tell him nice stories about God and angels and how he's going to get to Hell if he commits suicide, but you have no right to force him to live. Now, how he ends his life, with or without help, or the title of the person who helps him, is a technicality.
The issue is clear, it's a matter of principle: I don't want the state, church or anyone else to take a decision in such a private, personal matter.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Even after you've applied all the patchs you think you need, don't use IE for casual browsing that's the way to get full of spyware.
Use Opera (recommended by me) or Firefox (a little slower but more popular) to do your browsing and use IE only if a bank site requires it.
That way you'll be free of virus, troyans and that kind of stuff.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
So you're saying if this guy were in a car accident and wanted to die you should let him, even with his high chance of recovery and even though he will probably be happy to be alive later?
I'm not saying you should force anyone to live. I'm just saying that you shouldn't kill him if you think things will get better for him.
I guess maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.
www.linuxpenguin.net
So you're saying if this guy were in a car accident and wanted to die you should let him, even with his high chance of recovery and even though he will probably be happy to be alive later?"
;-)
It's interesting that you use this impersonal example "a guy who had accident".
I use a clear and personal example exactly because I don't want to take decisions for somebody else life: so, if *I* had a car accident and *I* wanted to die (no matter what chances of healing I would have) or even better example if I didn't had any car accident, but I wanted to die -- I would not appreciate you or anyone else, especially the state, to intervene in my decision in any direction (or Dr. K. for that matter and here we are on the same page, so let's finish with a common point
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Wow... you wrote all those words without even attempting to support the idea that "the Iraq war protects the freedoms of Americans." You rambled about US citizens have a lot of freedom. You asserted that military action, in general, was needed to make it this way. You used words like "overall." But the only military action anyone mentioned was the one in Iraq, about which you said absolutely nothing. Thanks for playing the internet: insert coins to continue.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I think i done that when i took the name sumdumass.
Anyway, I was wondering why somone who came off as claming they were so inteligent (the troll, not you) had so many problems reading a post that he decided to make note of it while hiding. Is it a defect in his intelectual superiorism. Are grammar and spelling nazis really scared school children? Or are they just some mentaly challenged anal case?
Maybe your rite and these questions are better not answered.
I appreciate all the advice on securing my laptop post deployment (and the wishes of wellness, also). I guess what I was really curious about though was the last bit of my post, regarding the lifecycle of some of these malignant phenomena. Is there a measurable lifespan for a virus, or browser exploit? Or do they never really go away, just lurk in the dark corners of the web like some hidden pocket of smallpox cozened away in the rainforest?
Comment removed based on user account deletion