You have no recourse (well, no really legal recourse) when you want your money back & the online merchant refuses to refund your money - where using your credit card the credit card company will usually credit you (within 3 months of the charge) the amount & they will deal with the offending merchant.
Its saddening to say this: The machine in question is merely a poor attempt to replicate the Marketing Department of a certain monopoly to make people think Bushie is a smart cookie. Marketing attempting to make people think this company's sotware is the only smart way to do business. If you hadn't noticed he similarites think about it, it's frightening.
However, just because the pages imply that it is the Government doesn't mean it actually *is* the government. If We the people would wake up & read the foundations of our government we would realize *WE* are the government & if we don't like what's going on we are obligated to *change* what we don't like. Too many laws are on the books, so it's back to basics for me.
You basically posit an automated (psuedo)Nym system. Zero-Knowledge did up the Nyms, you or someone can come up with the software & dongle/device/whatever/thingie
Once you've seen firsthand in Hack Attacks Revealed all the tools and techniques that hackers use to exploit network security loopholes, you're ready to learn specific methods for protecting all parts of the network against security breaches. Corporate hack master Chirillo shows readers how to develop a security policy that has high alert capability for incoming attacks and a turnkey prevention system to keep them out. Network professionals will find expert guidance on securing ports and services, intrusion detection mechanisms, gateways and routers, Tiger Team secrets, Internet server daemons, operating systems, proxies and firewalls, and more.
...unique identification" number. this could no doubt be used for some form of DMCA enforcement, somehow. or maybe even personal tracking! quick, run! hide from the government and corporations alike! you have been tagged, numbered, and identified--you have
"...how is this any different from any LEA walking into a library or a video rental store and demanding a list of all the books and videos check out over a period days and the persons that checked them out?"
Libraries / Librarians are not going to blithley "give over" their users' reading logs. The American Library Association (ALA) is right in the front lines saying to "them" (LEAs, etc) back off man, nobody gets to see that.
The only way to connect a book to a reader is if the reader still has a book checked out or owes a fine on it for returning it late. (Note to those iniclined - return your books on time and/or pay your late fines or risk having "them" know what you read)
The only historical data kept is statistical, a librarian can merely say "S/he has checked out X million books" or "that book went out X trillion times" All major database vendors for library circulation systems have effectivly been told - we don't want this logged. If it can be logged, we won't buy it.
Kinda like zero-knowledge technically we *could* track it, but we don't.
Okay we've talked, now what are we gonna do?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 2
Okay so we all seem to be in agreement free speech = good and censorship = bad.
But how strongly do you believe that CDA/CIPA/filtering/gov't(or any)snooping is bad? Are you willing to go to jail for it?
In the name of free speech journalists have gone to jail for not revealing their sources, libraries have been sued for their server logs, librarians have stongly resisted orders from gov't agencies (FBI & the like) & from the judiciary (subpoenas) to turn over borrowing records. I suspect someone in the Michigan library that was sued for their logs pre-empted the probability of another suit by deleting the logs.
It takes action to defend what you believe. NO not guns & such, use what influence you have with whomever has more influence than you.
Letters are great. Only well thought out arguments logically presented work in print.
(otherwise they could be considered threats)
F2F conversations with politicians and/or their hangers-on are better, associate a face with the argument. Make the politician associate doing this with support from you & your friends (we all have freinds, whether we call them associates, the guy next door, or the pub crawl club we hang out with) Remember well thought out, non-confrontational, passionate persuasion -- not mumbled half threats (or full threats for that matter) get the point across.
What? You don't know anyone in politics? What about the poor slobs "above" you in the corporate scheme of things? Above them? Think they might know "somebody"?
Did/do you vote? (if you didn't then you deserve the W) Do you pay taxes? Can you get to your representative's local office? (check the Phone Book) Chat up the office help, schmooze your way into a f2f. Make your point!
Get out of your version of the e-cliner and do something (there _are_ enough of us to matter)
After looking at BIND 9.x & thinking about what kind of attention it would rquire (from an administrative point of view) I would still go with DDNS on W2K. Mostly 'cause it requires no thought, dynamicly (sp?) registers services - like WINS did (not that WINS was great, mind you), and will probably have fewer releases/patches issued (the fixes will come in SP form rather than a series of nitpicky little tweaks (goes back to the "requires no thought" idea)
No offense meant to the developers, I'm just basically opposed to doing stuff to the machine over and over. Once I get it set up & running right I shouldn't have to touch it very often.
Okay, my bad. (and pardon the bad form)
(actually I can hardly believe I didn't catch myself before I submitted -- there is something to say about trying to function for a day non-caffinated: "Don't do it")
So, the correction:
In "native mode" there are *only* _DC_s.
In "mixed mode" (i.e. before you have upgraded all your NT4 BDCs to W2K DCs and told the domain that you want to do the one way conversion to "native mode") you can still have NT4 BDCs.
To quote M$, "...however, mixed mode severely limits the functionality of a Windows 2000 network..." meaning, if you are still in mixed mode and don't really plan to get to native mode as soon as you can you really needn't have bothered with the upgrade.
W2K is actually pretty neat, for example you can assign or publish software packages to user accounts, meaning the software is installed & configured (transparently to the user) the first time the user wants to use it. And this installation is very difficult to sabotage. E.G. I assigned myself M$ Word, doubleclicked the icon on my toolbar, and it installed & I used it. Then I got bored and selected the.dll's associated with M$ Word and deleted them. (severly limiting the functionality of Word, I thought) The OS (I think) noticed these.dll's were required for the software package to work and reloaded them from the networked installation files so the functionality remained. (what functionality there is anyway)
While I know noone's users would do such a thing (yah, rite) it's a handy feature to have when your users think they know what they're doing.
Okay, there seems to be a small misperception going on.
In W2K there are no _B_DCs. All _DC_s contain a distributed, writeable, copy of the SAM database if you haven't enabled AD or if you're in native mode with AD enabled each DC contains a copy of the "Active Directory" database.
The first W2K (server) box that is brought online will become the "forest root" domain server --meaning it will emulate an NT4 PDC for backward compatibility (naming scheme requires dns/fqdn format - no more WINS, no more UNC paths, no more nasty browser service) it will be the boss (for it *is* a control freak, unlike me) for the W2K network. (for ease of admin, put the *nix boxen on a different logical network - much easier)
No more polling, no more elections. (yay!)
NT4 BDCs always were responsible for the same thing - logon validation to take the heat off the PDC. (this is the only "real" reason for making a BDC anyway (besides PDC/SAM Database backup))
Any other "jobs" each box did was configurable and not dynamically changable. Member servers could handle these other responsibilities anyway.
Perhaps the original explanation you received was less than clear. (I know I can be obfuscatory by accident) If you are really interested in this sort of thing you should ask for clarification of your situation. (IM(honest)O)
If you are set on doing this, AD requires W2K "native mode" -- all _DC_s must be W2K servers.
If you try to switch to AD while you still have NT4 BDCs present, of course there will be issues. NT4 can't handle several aspects of AD.
As to *nix boxen, as long as you don't care that they are not DCs, they work acceptably on the network. However, they don't handle some of the DDNS stuff he way the W2K stuff does. I suggest using a W2K box for DDNS - I find much less hassle (but I'm not a control freak) this way.
...there's more discussion about this election going on than the media report
Hopefully this means people will actually go and vote on election day (or submit an early ballot)
I have forgotten the actual stats from the last election, but I think voter turnout was something like 48% of registered voters. And Clinton/Gore won with between 49 and 53% of the vote. That means only 26% *of the entire body of registered voters* actually voted for Clinton/Gore
In the long run it doesn't matter who you vote for -- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE. (the smaller the turnout the less work "those bozos" (you pick which side you think they are) have to do to win)
While the lesser of two (or more) evils is still evil, it is *less* evil
Oh, and don't forget the big picture this election cycle: A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.
The *QUESTION* (which came out of arthur dent's brain in a random draw of scrabble token at the beginnig of time (or at least early on) after drawing a Q and chucking it into a bush and killing a rabbit which dent kills again later... enough, read the books.)
Right, the *QUESTION*:
"What is six times nine?"
The *ANSWER*:
"42"
"Which merely demonstrated that there is something fundamentally wrong with the universe."
Though actually if you work it out in Base 13 it *is* correct.
Select your industry. The mean of their research (not the average, but the mean) is displayed. For more detail they are willing to mail you their stuff ("free") but then you'll be on their mailing list... so how "free" is it really? By the by, this is probably US/Canada (in $US) positions only, but they don't really say.
Sure it's hokey, but to me it's presented as an example of how "not to do it" and it's a challenge to come up with a better way to do it yourself.
Bitch & moan about what & how they did it all you want but if you're really serious [and not just another whiner] design and build a better way to present the ideas. Then provide the URL. (to/. and DoJ and wherever else you deem appropriate - [gasp] maybe even to teachers for them to challenge their students to out-do you (and DoJ and each other)
Slashdot Mirror
You have no recourse (well, no really legal recourse) when you want your money back & the online merchant refuses to refund your money - where using your credit card the credit card company will usually credit you (within 3 months of the charge) the amount & they will deal with the offending merchant.
Its saddening to say this:
The machine in question is merely a poor attempt to replicate the Marketing Department of a certain monopoly to make people think Bushie is a smart cookie. Marketing attempting to make people think this company's sotware is the only smart way to do business. If you hadn't noticed he similarites think about it, it's frightening.
However, just because the pages imply that it is the Government doesn't mean it actually *is* the government.
If We the people would wake up & read the foundations of our government we would realize *WE* are the government & if we don't like what's going on we are obligated to *change* what we don't like.
Too many laws are on the books, so it's back to basics for me.
But I digress...
Check out Zero-Knowledge and their Freedom.net.
You basically posit an automated (psuedo)Nym system. Zero-Knowledge did up the Nyms, you or someone can come up with the software & dongle/device/whatever/thingie
Apparently this book is just a warm-up for Hack Attacks Denied
From the "publisher's summary":
Once you've seen firsthand in Hack Attacks Revealed all the tools and techniques that hackers use to exploit network security loopholes, you're ready to learn specific methods for protecting all parts of the network against security breaches. Corporate hack master Chirillo shows readers how to develop a security policy that has high alert capability for incoming attacks and a turnkey prevention system to keep them out. Network professionals will find expert guidance on securing ports and services, intrusion detection mechanisms, gateways and routers, Tiger Team secrets, Internet server daemons, operating systems, proxies and firewalls, and more.
Am I a victim of a time fold again, as my wife says, or wtf?
A Social Security Number
if you happen to live in the US anyway!
Libraries / Librarians are not going to blithley "give over" their users' reading logs.
The American Library Association (ALA) is right in the front lines saying to "them" (LEAs, etc) back off man, nobody gets to see that.
The only way to connect a book to a reader is if the reader still has a book checked out or owes a fine on it for returning it late. (Note to those iniclined - return your books on time and/or pay your late fines or risk having "them" know what you read)
The only historical data kept is statistical, a librarian can merely say "S/he has checked out X million books" or "that book went out X trillion times" All major database vendors for library circulation systems have effectivly been told - we don't want this logged. If it can be logged, we won't buy it.
Kinda like zero-knowledge technically we *could* track it, but we don't.
No that I'm arguing, but how about some sources/documantation to back it up?
A Troll!
Too bad we can't mod him out of existence.
Okay so we all seem to be in agreement free speech = good and censorship = bad.
But how strongly do you believe that CDA/CIPA/filtering/gov't(or any)snooping is bad? Are you willing to go to jail for it?
In the name of free speech journalists have gone to jail for not revealing their sources, libraries have been sued for their server logs, librarians have stongly resisted orders from gov't agencies (FBI & the like) & from the judiciary (subpoenas) to turn over borrowing records. I suspect someone in the Michigan library that was sued for their logs pre-empted the probability of another suit by deleting the logs.
It takes action to defend what you believe. NO not guns & such, use what influence you have with whomever has more influence than you.
Letters are great. Only well thought out arguments logically presented work in print.
(otherwise they could be considered threats)
F2F conversations with politicians and/or their hangers-on are better, associate a face with the argument. Make the politician associate doing this with support from you & your friends (we all have freinds, whether we call them associates, the guy next door, or the pub crawl club we hang out with) Remember well thought out, non-confrontational, passionate persuasion -- not mumbled half threats (or full threats for that matter) get the point across.
What? You don't know anyone in politics? What about the poor slobs "above" you in the corporate scheme of things? Above them? Think they might know "somebody"?
Did/do you vote? (if you didn't then you deserve the W) Do you pay taxes? Can you get to your representative's local office? (check the Phone Book) Chat up the office help, schmooze your way into a f2f. Make your point!
Get out of your version of the e-cliner and do something (there _are_ enough of us to matter)
After looking at BIND 9.x & thinking about what kind of attention it would rquire (from an administrative point of view) I would still go with DDNS on W2K. Mostly 'cause it requires no thought, dynamicly (sp?) registers services - like WINS did (not that WINS was great, mind you), and will probably have fewer releases/patches issued (the fixes will come in SP form rather than a series of nitpicky little tweaks (goes back to the "requires no thought" idea)
No offense meant to the developers, I'm just basically opposed to doing stuff to the machine over and over. Once I get it set up & running right I shouldn't have to touch it very often.
Okay, my bad. (and pardon the bad form)
.dll's associated with M$ Word and deleted them. (severly limiting the functionality of Word, I thought) The OS (I think) noticed these .dll's were required for the software package to work and reloaded them from the networked installation files so the functionality remained. (what functionality there is anyway)
(actually I can hardly believe I didn't catch myself before I submitted -- there is something to say about trying to function for a day non-caffinated: "Don't do it")
So, the correction:
In "native mode" there are *only* _DC_s.
In "mixed mode" (i.e. before you have upgraded all your NT4 BDCs to W2K DCs and told the domain that you want to do the one way conversion to "native mode") you can still have NT4 BDCs.
To quote M$, "...however, mixed mode severely limits the functionality of a Windows 2000 network..." meaning, if you are still in mixed mode and don't really plan to get to native mode as soon as you can you really needn't have bothered with the upgrade.
W2K is actually pretty neat, for example you can assign or publish software packages to user accounts, meaning the software is installed & configured (transparently to the user) the first time the user wants to use it. And this installation is very difficult to sabotage. E.G. I assigned myself M$ Word, doubleclicked the icon on my toolbar, and it installed & I used it. Then I got bored and selected the
While I know noone's users would do such a thing (yah, rite) it's a handy feature to have when your users think they know what they're doing.
-Dubber
Okay, there seems to be a small misperception going on.
In W2K there are no _B_DCs. All _DC_s contain a distributed, writeable, copy of the SAM database if you haven't enabled AD or if you're in native mode with AD enabled each DC contains a copy of the "Active Directory" database.
The first W2K (server) box that is brought online will become the "forest root" domain server --meaning it will emulate an NT4 PDC for backward compatibility (naming scheme requires dns/fqdn format - no more WINS, no more UNC paths, no more nasty browser service) it will be the boss (for it *is* a control freak, unlike me) for the W2K network. (for ease of admin, put the *nix boxen on a different logical network - much easier)
No more polling, no more elections. (yay!)
NT4 BDCs always were responsible for the same thing - logon validation to take the heat off the PDC. (this is the only "real" reason for making a BDC anyway (besides PDC/SAM Database backup))
Any other "jobs" each box did was configurable and not dynamically changable. Member servers could handle these other responsibilities anyway.
Perhaps the original explanation you received was less than clear. (I know I can be obfuscatory by accident) If you are really interested in this sort of thing you should ask for clarification of your situation. (IM(honest)O)
Ah, but I digress
-Dubber
If you are set on doing this, AD requires W2K "native mode" -- all _DC_s must be W2K servers.
If you try to switch to AD while you still have NT4 BDCs present, of course there will be issues. NT4 can't handle several aspects of AD.
As to *nix boxen, as long as you don't care that they are not DCs, they work acceptably on the network. However, they don't handle some of the DDNS stuff he way the W2K stuff does. I suggest using a W2K box for DDNS - I find much less hassle (but I'm not a control freak) this way.
-Dubber
...there's more discussion about this election going on than the media report
:-)'
Hopefully this means people will actually go and vote on election day (or submit an early ballot)
I have forgotten the actual stats from the last election, but I think voter turnout was something like 48% of registered voters. And Clinton/Gore won with between 49 and 53% of the vote. That means only 26% *of the entire body of registered voters* actually voted for Clinton/Gore
In the long run it doesn't matter who you vote for -- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE. (the smaller the turnout the less work "those bozos" (you pick which side you think they are) have to do to win)
While the lesser of two (or more) evils is still evil, it is *less* evil
Oh, and don't forget the big picture this election cycle: A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.
-dubber
Bill Gates, the person whose life experiences were cataloged by the FBI to simplify the codification of "the list"
Don't we all wish he actually *had* done something bad enough to get locked away before he made enough money to be able to
buy himself a country?
crush Apple?
crush Mozilla?
created a de facto monopoly with the wherewithal to survive as a monopoly, even with an extremely negative finding of fact against it?
This is a reply to this and the other response.
The *QUESTION* (which came out of arthur dent's brain in a random draw of scrabble token at the beginnig of time (or at least early on) after drawing a Q and chucking it into a bush and killing a rabbit which dent kills again later... enough, read the books.)
Right, the *QUESTION*:
"What is six times nine?"
The *ANSWER*:
"42"
"Which merely demonstrated that there is something fundamentally wrong with the universe."
Though actually if you work it out in Base 13 it *is* correct.
Do the math.
Kforce (headhunters, apparently) has a broad set of categories at:
www.kforce.com/ Kforce/salarysurvey.nsf/SalarySurvey?openForm
Select your industry. The mean of their research (not the average, but the mean) is displayed. For more detail they are willing to mail you their stuff ("free") but then you'll be on their mailing list... so how "free" is it really?
By the by, this is probably US/Canada (in $US) positions only, but they don't really say.
Sure it's hokey, but to me it's presented as an example of how "not to do it" and it's a challenge to come up with a better way to do it yourself.
/. and DoJ and wherever else you deem appropriate - [gasp] maybe even to teachers for them to challenge their students to out-do you (and DoJ and each other)
Bitch & moan about what & how they did it all you want but if you're really serious [and not just another whiner] design and build a better way to present the ideas. Then provide the URL. (to