The solution is not to panic but start hiring competent network architects. People who understand the risks are able to look at the situation and understand the consequences of their implementations, also look at possible unintended consequences and formulate solutions appropriately. No more sales driven network installs with under qualified installers that don't know an ip stack from a stack of pancakes. Of course any of these glam hackers out there know the only way to peddle your skills is to keep everyone scared tell them nothing can be totally secure knowing they will interpret it as my network will never be secure and as such we shouldn't be connected to the internet at all. The only difference between them and this guy is he is to stupid to even make it believable to the technical community.
This so reminds me of a stripped down version of the old Ericsson Cybergenie. The only difference is that the Cybergenie supported multiple extensions acted like a mini PBX for those extensions included voice mail and ran two incoming pots lines. It has a slew of other features and supported multiple interfaces to the unit including a headset unit that could be worn.
These things can be picked up for less than this product is selling also at around 100 dollars used.
You must be an engineer. A normal person would look at it from the perspective they want it to be usefull and not a burdon to use. I personally want my 5 9s and I want it to work even when I'm in a drunken stuper so when I make my daily sales calls I don't end up calling my boss.
And I was single out for my last name and made fun of on a daily basis. I was a nerd in school and didn't find it to be all that great of an experience either. The thing I had going for me were understanding and consistent parents who cared about me and my well being. They guided me through these rough times to where I am today. I feel no animosity towards the children who taunted me or the bullies who bullied me. I am content with the fact that kids will be kids and try as you might changing their behavior it only comes with time and maturity not by removing certain stimulus that they feel was the cause for their individual plights. This itself breads individuality and a strong character. I think your assertion of how you knew about their religions better than they did is a bit asinine. To claim your knowledge of someone else's beliefs exceeds their own is arrogant to say the least.
I don't know about the number of atheists being small according to episode 340 listed on the American atheist website there are "over 30 million atheists in America". I personally am finding a disturbing stereotype that I'm fighting hard not to turn into a personal prejudice. Most all of the information I have found is quite militant in content and has a sole purpose of removing all religion everywhere. Most all of it with regards to the 1st amendment regardless of weather or not the situation is even related with government.
Well put and underrated. I can only hope that there are more people out there like you that understand true freedom and are willing to stand up regardless of criticism for what is right.
Really, so were do you draw the line? The president is I believe Baptist I have heard him and many other members of our government use the term god on many occasions. Should they to be removed from government? How about the teachings of roman or Greek gods in school should that to be removed from the curriculum? Should we remove science and the teaching of evolotution because it goes against the Christian beliefs of creation?
The whole term is generic enough anyway that it should not offend anyone who is not looking to be offended. If there is no god then our country is ruled by no one but us. If there is a god then he is the only one that rules above us.
So what I feel really happens here is these "free thinkers" see that many people like to think of it as our nation being watched over by god and because of this they feel it should be removed in any and all forms. I feel like this is petty and childish the use of the constitution as a weapon to deny people their rights which is expressly outlined with the 9th amendment.
I guess I'm just dense enough to understand that you know very little about democracy and majority rules. I'm also dense enough to read this and understand what is says. I'm also dense enough to understand this affords you the right to practice your own religion and call me dense or ignorant if you so desire.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm also dense enough that I understand now why this is in there.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I'm also dense enough to understand that people in general are really feeling worn down by others who are claiming their rights are being violated because they were picked on as children just to suit their current cause. You vote just like the rest of us for your representation in office. You also have the ability to transfer your child to a non public school or home school.
So with that I said I'm sorry if you were picked on. It is the fault of those who picked on you for being so un-accepting. I know were I came from things have never been like that. It does not excuse the bending of truth in your first post or the name-calling. And are you sending the message of acceptance when you say that by saying the words in god we trust we are offending atheists and "indoctrinating your children" into our beliefs.
Your calling me ignorant, I didn't say Paine and Voltaire were atheists and discount and entire country's religion to try and disprove a point that still stands. I understand the prejudice against Christianity now even though I didn't before last night. I can admit that referring to everyone who believes in god as Christian was possibly misusing the term. But this was based off my definition, which I clearly explained earlier that I viewed Christians as people who simply believed in god not people who practice Christianity. So I still stand behind what I now know is fact that out country was founded by people who believe in god and there are way more people in the US who believe in god than who don't. And if referring to these people as Christians is offensive then they are just looking to be offended and if that comment didn't do it any number of others would have.
If anything the only thing your comments have proved so far is that you are willing to lie to prove your point. How credible is that?
How is this not exactly what is happening? By removing the phrase under god aren't you effectively removing god from this equation giving atheists what they want at the expense of the rest of the nations beliefs and values. Using the constitution as a basis for silencing religion in government is a major slap in the face to a great majority of Americans. If we must respect the fact that people out there don't believe in god then they damb well better respect that a great many Americans do. They also need to respect the fact that our forefathers believed in god as well. I looked it up and everyone on the previous list were people were referred to as atheist they were not. They all believed in god. Some of them just didn't believe he played a daily role in our lives.
Over the past day and a half I have read more than I have probably read in the past two years. All I can say is from what I have read many of the pro removal comments I have seen in this thread while many are well written many are inaccurate and in some cases plain lies. The constitution does not afford us the right not to hear religion in schools or government it provides us with the security that we can practice the religions we would like without fear of prosecution.
Suiting for breach of contract does not normally come about with asset seazures and the like. The point made here earlier is that this is definitly being moved on as a criminal act. The only way they could create this into a criminal act is by showing the computers were used in a theft of service which cost the provider money. This is the only way the the isp could have constructed it to present the largest amount of damage to these individuals while having very little to prove forcing them into a plea bargain over the theft of said service in order to avoid federal records. Given this everyone should be a little afraid of the implications of this and very aware of what is going on. Not because we all want to run out and uncap our cable modems without fear of reprocusion but because of the way they are handeling these peoples right by seizing their property without trial and convicting them in the court of public opinion even before they have been able to stand trial.
So you are passing off your views as being open and honest when you're actually just as biased as I am. You should know what people call you doesn't make you such. And even Deist believe in a god or creator. Given this your probably right about my comments of the Christians. I use the term to describe those who believe in god as a higher power and our creator.
Now look at what you're saying and let me pose a conundrum for you. If using the word god in government could be considered religious and the absence of religion is itself becoming and organized religion of atheists. Then isn't fighting what already is government to get it out spending my tax dollars to indoctrinate my kid into your religion.
This is a sad and true fact. I just don't think the solution is for all services to come turned off when you install them. For me at least the logic is that if I install it I want to use it. This isn't an option with many of the IIS servers you see polluting the net right now.
Why is what I said wrong? Everyone you mentioned in retort still had basic Christian beliefs with the exception of Jefferson. And why are Paine and Voltaire atheists? Is this your personal label of them? Voltaire would be on the possibly side based of his writings but not Paine.
As I understood them the Virginia acts were more or less to prevent a particular order from becoming that of the state. How does this give anyone the right to exist or worship as they choose and even more so how does this make atheists the saviors of religious freedom.
You use a lot of facts here most people wouldn't know but they don't seem to support what you said to begin with that I was somehow wrong in my statement that the United States was founded by christians and is still predominantly still just that a nation of people who believe in god and trust in god.
This doesn't mean that there are any ill feelings from me aside from the real issue, which is the catering towards the minority views. No matter how pretty a picture you try and paint more people in this country believe in god than don't. This 9th district appeals court that ruled on this particular issue after more research has been overruled more than any other court in the United States period. I think this factoid in and of itself speaks volumes. What makes our country great and special is our freedom to do, not the freedom to limit what the majority does in order to consider the special emotional and coddling needs of the minority.
If again you think I'm wrong in any of this show me were I can learn it for myself because I like many of your so called free thinkers frequently question what I am told or read in search of my own truth.
Now if this is the case then obviously you should simply call the authorities when you see such an advertisement and leave it at that. Paying someone 10 bucks an hour to surf and find these for everyone they find that gets prosecuted give them a 50-dollar bonus. Don't spend hundreds of development hours that will cost you many many times over to try and stop them and still be about as successful as the one guy browsing the web for pirated cards. It's trying to prove you are the big guy on the playground when you aren't as big as you think that gets a lot of these companies into these pissing matches and the only one who gets hurt are the customers who are legitimately paying for the service.
Or they are upset because people are using insignificant gestures as a means to sue the government for money, which is exactly what this guy was doing. While your logic sounds ok like most liberal/socialist views it is very narrow in its view and looks only at the here and now. The pledge of allegiance is for the United States of America founded by Christians and predominantly just that. To please the liberal's yes there were others here first the use of the term founded is to indicate when they arrive a movement was started that developed us into the country we are today. I think 100% of the people who are opposed to the pledge of allegiance are so because they don't like to be reminded of their minority status. I for one am Christian so I know I am biased and I won't claim not to be but I also feel that we are focusing in this country way to much on pleasing minority interests for political gain because we have been convinced it is the right thing to do. I'm starting to get the feeling this may only be in the interests of the minorities and in the best interests of the country as a whole. And I do fear were this type of liberal/socialist attitude will lead this country over the next decade. I know this Michael Newdow isn't thinking about it he just wants his monetary return and I wonder sometimes when we stopped thinking about the long term effects of our actions in favor of what is going to effect me here and now.
Is this what happens when we place intellect over common sense. Take about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This panel to make such a ruling is nonsense. Participation is not mandatory and the ability to make that choice is what makes this country great. To deny the majority their rights based of ones opinion of its constitutionality is in itself unconstitutional. At the least the panel here should really consider the ethics and consequences of their decision. Even our currency reads in god we trust so how this argument holds water with anyone is beyond me and we as Americans better stand up now or all the minority notches will run everything for fear of political whiplash like this from people who obviously are looking for nothing more than to make a name for themselves.
Why not do what normal people do and bring up machines offline first in a staging area then configure and bring them online when you have the machine setup and configured properly. It is the way most professionals do it anyway. I would have to shoot someone on my team if they installed a sever and brought it online directly in the dmz.
What about setting PAMAuthenticationViaKbdInt no as well. It appeared in the mailing list.
Re:Ok i've made it halfway through the responses h
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
I see how the impression was made now. The title of the piece is "So whatever happened to linux?" So this is the basis for getting people up in arms huh? The people who approve or reject articles really need to read the stuff before the post things like this. I really was anable to draw any of the conclusions drawn in the post even though I was looking to so that is pretty sad on both tacos and tunkeymickets part.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution is not to panic but start hiring competent network architects. People who understand the risks are able to look at the situation and understand the consequences of their implementations, also look at possible unintended consequences and formulate solutions appropriately. No more sales driven network installs with under qualified installers that don't know an ip stack from a stack of pancakes. Of course any of these glam hackers out there know the only way to peddle your skills is to keep everyone scared tell them nothing can be totally secure knowing they will interpret it as my network will never be secure and as such we shouldn't be connected to the internet at all. The only difference between them and this guy is he is to stupid to even make it believable to the technical community.
Thats ok, I hear they are making special troll phones so you won't be left out.
This so reminds me of a stripped down version of the old Ericsson Cybergenie. The only difference is that the Cybergenie supported multiple extensions acted like a mini PBX for those extensions included voice mail and ran two incoming pots lines. It has a slew of other features and supported multiple interfaces to the unit including a headset unit that could be worn.
These things can be picked up for less than this product is selling also at around 100 dollars used.
Amazon Cyber Genie
You must be an engineer. A normal person would look at it from the perspective they want it to be usefull and not a burdon to use. I personally want my 5 9s and I want it to work even when I'm in a drunken stuper so when I make my daily sales calls I don't end up calling my boss.
Thats nothing check out some of this posters past +5 comments. Makes you wonder who really mods slashdot.
And I was single out for my last name and made fun of on a daily basis. I was a nerd in school and didn't find it to be all that great of an experience either. The thing I had going for me were understanding and consistent parents who cared about me and my well being. They guided me through these rough times to where I am today. I feel no animosity towards the children who taunted me or the bullies who bullied me. I am content with the fact that kids will be kids and try as you might changing their behavior it only comes with time and maturity not by removing certain stimulus that they feel was the cause for their individual plights. This itself breads individuality and a strong character. I think your assertion of how you knew about their religions better than they did is a bit asinine. To claim your knowledge of someone else's beliefs exceeds their own is arrogant to say the least.
I don't know about the number of atheists being small according to episode 340 listed on the American atheist website there are "over 30 million atheists in America". I personally am finding a disturbing stereotype that I'm fighting hard not to turn into a personal prejudice. Most all of the information I have found is quite militant in content and has a sole purpose of removing all religion everywhere. Most all of it with regards to the 1st amendment regardless of weather or not the situation is even related with government.
Well put and underrated. I can only hope that there are more people out there like you that understand true freedom and are willing to stand up regardless of criticism for what is right.
Really, so were do you draw the line? The president is I believe Baptist I have heard him and many other members of our government use the term god on many occasions. Should they to be removed from government? How about the teachings of roman or Greek gods in school should that to be removed from the curriculum? Should we remove science and the teaching of evolotution because it goes against the Christian beliefs of creation?
The whole term is generic enough anyway that it should not offend anyone who is not looking to be offended. If there is no god then our country is ruled by no one but us. If there is a god then he is the only one that rules above us.
So what I feel really happens here is these "free thinkers" see that many people like to think of it as our nation being watched over by god and because of this they feel it should be removed in any and all forms. I feel like this is petty and childish the use of the constitution as a weapon to deny people their rights which is expressly outlined with the 9th amendment.
I'm also dense enough that I understand now why this is in there.
I'm also dense enough to understand that people in general are really feeling worn down by others who are claiming their rights are being violated because they were picked on as children just to suit their current cause. You vote just like the rest of us for your representation in office. You also have the ability to transfer your child to a non public school or home school.
So with that I said I'm sorry if you were picked on. It is the fault of those who picked on you for being so un-accepting. I know were I came from things have never been like that. It does not excuse the bending of truth in your first post or the name-calling. And are you sending the message of acceptance when you say that by saying the words in god we trust we are offending atheists and "indoctrinating your children" into our beliefs.
Your calling me ignorant, I didn't say Paine and Voltaire were atheists and discount and entire country's religion to try and disprove a point that still stands. I understand the prejudice against Christianity now even though I didn't before last night. I can admit that referring to everyone who believes in god as Christian was possibly misusing the term. But this was based off my definition, which I clearly explained earlier that I viewed Christians as people who simply believed in god not people who practice Christianity. So I still stand behind what I now know is fact that out country was founded by people who believe in god and there are way more people in the US who believe in god than who don't. And if referring to these people as Christians is offensive then they are just looking to be offended and if that comment didn't do it any number of others would have.
If anything the only thing your comments have proved so far is that you are willing to lie to prove your point. How credible is that?
How is this not exactly what is happening? By removing the phrase under god aren't you effectively removing god from this equation giving atheists what they want at the expense of the rest of the nations beliefs and values. Using the constitution as a basis for silencing religion in government is a major slap in the face to a great majority of Americans. If we must respect the fact that people out there don't believe in god then they damb well better respect that a great many Americans do. They also need to respect the fact that our forefathers believed in god as well. I looked it up and everyone on the previous list were people were referred to as atheist they were not. They all believed in god. Some of them just didn't believe he played a daily role in our lives.
Over the past day and a half I have read more than I have probably read in the past two years. All I can say is from what I have read many of the pro removal comments I have seen in this thread while many are well written many are inaccurate and in some cases plain lies. The constitution does not afford us the right not to hear religion in schools or government it provides us with the security that we can practice the religions we would like without fear of prosecution.
Suiting for breach of contract does not normally come about with asset seazures and the like. The point made here earlier is that this is definitly being moved on as a criminal act. The only way they could create this into a criminal act is by showing the computers were used in a theft of service which cost the provider money. This is the only way the the isp could have constructed it to present the largest amount of damage to these individuals while having very little to prove forcing them into a plea bargain over the theft of said service in order to avoid federal records. Given this everyone should be a little afraid of the implications of this and very aware of what is going on. Not because we all want to run out and uncap our cable modems without fear of reprocusion but because of the way they are handeling these peoples right by seizing their property without trial and convicting them in the court of public opinion even before they have been able to stand trial.
So you are passing off your views as being open and honest when you're actually just as biased as I am. You should know what people call you doesn't make you such. And even Deist believe in a god or creator. Given this your probably right about my comments of the Christians. I use the term to describe those who believe in god as a higher power and our creator.
Now look at what you're saying and let me pose a conundrum for you. If using the word god in government could be considered religious and the absence of religion is itself becoming and organized religion of atheists. Then isn't fighting what already is government to get it out spending my tax dollars to indoctrinate my kid into your religion.
This is a sad and true fact. I just don't think the solution is for all services to come turned off when you install them. For me at least the logic is that if I install it I want to use it. This isn't an option with many of the IIS servers you see polluting the net right now.
Another question does that last statement in and of itself make me an atheist?
Why is what I said wrong? Everyone you mentioned in retort still had basic Christian beliefs with the exception of Jefferson. And why are Paine and Voltaire atheists? Is this your personal label of them? Voltaire would be on the possibly side based of his writings but not Paine.
As I understood them the Virginia acts were more or less to prevent a particular order from becoming that of the state. How does this give anyone the right to exist or worship as they choose and even more so how does this make atheists the saviors of religious freedom.
You use a lot of facts here most people wouldn't know but they don't seem to support what you said to begin with that I was somehow wrong in my statement that the United States was founded by christians and is still predominantly still just that a nation of people who believe in god and trust in god.
This doesn't mean that there are any ill feelings from me aside from the real issue, which is the catering towards the minority views. No matter how pretty a picture you try and paint more people in this country believe in god than don't. This 9th district appeals court that ruled on this particular issue after more research has been overruled more than any other court in the United States period. I think this factoid in and of itself speaks volumes. What makes our country great and special is our freedom to do, not the freedom to limit what the majority does in order to consider the special emotional and coddling needs of the minority.
If again you think I'm wrong in any of this show me were I can learn it for myself because I like many of your so called free thinkers frequently question what I am told or read in search of my own truth.
Whya re you suspiscious of this. Is it bad to be a male caucasion?
And if you read anything you would see he was seeking compensation.
Now if this is the case then obviously you should simply call the authorities when you see such an advertisement and leave it at that. Paying someone 10 bucks an hour to surf and find these for everyone they find that gets prosecuted give them a 50-dollar bonus. Don't spend hundreds of development hours that will cost you many many times over to try and stop them and still be about as successful as the one guy browsing the web for pirated cards. It's trying to prove you are the big guy on the playground when you aren't as big as you think that gets a lot of these companies into these pissing matches and the only one who gets hurt are the customers who are legitimately paying for the service.
Or they are upset because people are using insignificant gestures as a means to sue the government for money, which is exactly what this guy was doing. While your logic sounds ok like most liberal/socialist views it is very narrow in its view and looks only at the here and now. The pledge of allegiance is for the United States of America founded by Christians and predominantly just that. To please the liberal's yes there were others here first the use of the term founded is to indicate when they arrive a movement was started that developed us into the country we are today. I think 100% of the people who are opposed to the pledge of allegiance are so because they don't like to be reminded of their minority status. I for one am Christian so I know I am biased and I won't claim not to be but I also feel that we are focusing in this country way to much on pleasing minority interests for political gain because we have been convinced it is the right thing to do. I'm starting to get the feeling this may only be in the interests of the minorities and in the best interests of the country as a whole. And I do fear were this type of liberal/socialist attitude will lead this country over the next decade. I know this Michael Newdow isn't thinking about it he just wants his monetary return and I wonder sometimes when we stopped thinking about the long term effects of our actions in favor of what is going to effect me here and now.
Is this what happens when we place intellect over common sense. Take about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This panel to make such a ruling is nonsense. Participation is not mandatory and the ability to make that choice is what makes this country great. To deny the majority their rights based of ones opinion of its constitutionality is in itself unconstitutional. At the least the panel here should really consider the ethics and consequences of their decision. Even our currency reads in god we trust so how this argument holds water with anyone is beyond me and we as Americans better stand up now or all the minority notches will run everything for fear of political whiplash like this from people who obviously are looking for nothing more than to make a name for themselves.
Why not do what normal people do and bring up machines offline first in a staging area then configure and bring them online when you have the machine setup and configured properly. It is the way most professionals do it anyway. I would have to shoot someone on my team if they installed a sever and brought it online directly in the dmz.
What about setting
PAMAuthenticationViaKbdInt no
as well. It appeared in the mailing list.
I see how the impression was made now. The title of the piece is "So whatever happened to linux?" So this is the basis for getting people up in arms huh? The people who approve or reject articles really need to read the stuff before the post things like this. I really was anable to draw any of the conclusions drawn in the post even though I was looking to so that is pretty sad on both tacos and tunkeymickets part.