Last I checked, you couldn't be held to a contract that required you to give up your constitutional rights. A person can not hold you to a contract that stipulates that you can not vote in an election, must become their slave, or will willingly go to jail without a jury trial if you don't hold up your end of the bargain.
Why let randmom chance decide? If nature got this far through unintelligent chance, just think how far we could go if we directed evolution through intelligent consideration (which, btw, we are doing anyway by not leaving our physically challenged to die shortly after birth like many animal species do).
Do you know how many geeks you file sharing? Guess how many of us download and install software, open a network sniffer, and watch the traffic that goes by... I guarantee that you'd have verification that Kazaa Lite included spyware within an hour of them adding it.
I think what they are talking about as far as examining "ports you have made public," is if you are running a website (on port 80) they access the web site. If you are sharing files using gnutella on port 6346, they use the gnutella client (or one that they programmed themseleves) to look at the files you are sharing. Then they log your IP and subponea your ISPs log files (under the DMCA) in case it is a dynamically assigned IP.
I don't work for the company (or even know anything about them), but this is how I assume that they are doing it--it's how I would do it (if I were a sell-out, low-life, rat-fink, evil bastard that is).
Still completely different. You are having to scan the "code" for the alarmed vehicle. You are in fact doing a brute force attack. Requesting a DHCP address is nothing of the sort. DHCP is a standard for handing out IP addresses. There is no authentication. It is designed to give out an address to ANY machine that requests it. For more information, see RFC 2131.
Again, if some type of security is added (like WEP), then proactive measures have to be taken to "break in"--much like building an RF scanning device would be the proactive measure that you would have to take to disarm the car alarm in you example.
So walking into other people's houses is fine as long as the door is unlocked right? Might as well make a sandwich and watch some TV while you're there too. Maybe take a shower, use the toilet, etc.
Completely different. It would be more equivalent to shouting, "Hey! Will someone let me in their house?" And the person's butler (who they have given instructions to) opens the door and says, "Sure! Come on in!" There is no attempt at entering where it can be presumed that you should not. You merely requested an IP address from any source that would give you one. If someplace doesn't want "outsiders" to connect to their network, it is trivial to configure the access point to not hand them an IP. Merely turning on WEP (although completely insecure) would still show that "This network is off-limits."
They are not using fear of force or exposure to obtain property. The lawyer isn't saying, "If you don't give my client x dollars, I will tell the whole world that you have sex with sheep." The debt collector is not saying, "Give us our money, or we'll break your legs."
Now, if the lawyer just goes out for fun and tells the world that you have sex with sheep (and you do)--or the debt collector shows up and breaks your legs, then neither are guilty of extortion. The debt collector is guilty of assault, of course, but the lawyer has committed no crime (that I'm aware of).
Actually the statute makes no differentiation between "true" and "untrue." It even goes as far as stating that threatening to divulge a "secret" is extortion.
Its only extortion if your threat is to do something illegal."
Not exactly. It is only extortion if you use fear or force to obtain what you want. You can carry out any of the threats to expose someone and it not be illegal--as long as you are not threatening them with exposure to procure some "property." Basically, it is the threat (used as leverage or a fear tactic) that is illegal.
I have started and stopped going to school many times now. When I started, I dropped out because I was lazy. I lost a bunch of scholarships because I basically hadn't grown up yet. Since I've started working full time (Network Engineer), I've gone back and found that it's easier to get through the classes (even the stupid ones) and I'm more focused when I do my homework (meaning I actually do it now). The problem now becomes time. Trying to take 17-19 hours (majoring in Physics) while working 25-30 (to make house payments, etc.) and spending time with the wife, is really hard for me. It takes A LOT of will power to be able to sit down and do homework after spending 5 hours at school and 5 hours at work--especially if you have a wife that likes to spend time together frequently.
That said, I would recommend going back and getting a degree to anyone. Of course, I would be a professional student if I could afford it. If there is any way to horde your money so you don't have to work while going to school, do it. Live on ramen noodles for a year, go to the library and read for entertainment, find a good employee to run your business while you go to school (of course you'll have to watch that carefully), and then just move into a dorm, apply for financial aid/scholarships, and live a real college student life (my wife vetoed that for me... no dorm). Anyway, I wish you the best of luck.
Perhaps if many Christians did not take the attitude that disagreement==persecution, they would be happier and seem less...fanatical. Your approach , makes it seem as though you think that the world is out to get you because of your religious beliefs, when, in fact, it is more likely to dislike you for your abrasive personality. Just my two cents...
The poster asked why someone with a technical/scientific mind would believe in a god. Faith is not a particularly "scientific" reason to belive something. Now, the only answer that Larry may be able to give could very well be "Faith," but hopefully he would be able to give some other information which would show a well reasoned, thoughtful opinion--as opposed to mere blind faith.
Here is the real problem that people just don't seem to get. IT people (the talented ones), by and large, are different from just about every other department in your company. The majority are never going to be "company men." We feel no loyalty to the company. Many of us even resent it. We are there for the money and the "toys." The only thing we truly respect in other people is intelligence. Most of us take great pride in our work, and will do anything we can to make sure that the systems keep running and you can keep working.
But, when the marketing/accounting/phb people keep breaking things by doing pointless, stupid, non-business-related shit, it pisses us off. Yes, VP Smith, I'm sure that you thought clicking the Naked Wife attatchment was a business related activity. BTW, you just killed the Exchange server. No one has been able to get their mail for the last three hours. Of course, we get chewed out because it happened. Even though we turned down in our request for the Exchange agent for our virus scanning software.
It always seems like everyone wants all the benefits of the great new technology without spending the money to do it right. They think, well this new widget has the features that would really make us more productive! Why can't we install it on the Domain Controller/Terminal Server(yes people actually do that-ARGH!)/Exchange Server? They forget, too, that if it wasn't for us they would still be doing everything on paper.
We realize that we wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the marketing/sales/etc people, but frankly you all do some really stupid shit (repeatedly). You blame us for things that are your fault. Guess what, we're salaried. Guess what? We were up until 4am fixing that last virus problem that you caused--not getting paid. Guess what? We don't get commissions, free lunches/dinners with clients, and don't get corporate sponsored vacations to the Bahamas.
No matter how you glorify your people skills, I can emulate them. All of my end-users like me because I pretend to like them. I'm cordial, congenial, and many even find me funny. Of course, being nice all day at work really drains me. 70 percent of the people I work with are idiots. Some of them may be nice idiots, but they are still idiots. I'm not just talking about computer skills, either. They are just not very intelligent. Its hard to respect the stupid.
So no, we don't tend to value people skills. Creativity on the other hand is something that almost all good techs that I have come across value deeply. Coming up with a creative, efficient, beautiful solution to a problem is highly regarded. Most of us are even fans of other creative enterprises: music, theater, art--we respect all of these. Junk mail, spam, lame commercials, and sales people who sell things that don't really exist that we have to implement some way for a customer--these things we have no respect for.
Well, I guess that's enough ranting. We know that the rest of you in "the enterprise" don't share our view, but thats because we have different values. It will probably always be that way.
Just yesterday I got bitched out because "ever since I installed the new VPN software" on one of the sales people's computers, it has been taking 20 minutes for it to boot. Didn't seem to mater that the "VPN software" was a MS PPTP connection that is basically a dial-up networking connection (which is definitely not connected at boot time).
Turns out, her husband had installed AOL on the machine and set up different name server settings (which makes it hard to connect to a Win2k domain controller that is only registered on the other name server).
After more checking, I agree. You are correct. Win32 API is not fundamentally broken. It is again, an implementation problem. Thanks for pointing that out.
No, it is the implementation of SSL in OpenSSL versions prior to 0.9.6e. This is not a failure of the SSL protocol, but a failure of an implementation of that protocol.
The Win32 API is fundamentallyflawed. SSL is not (as far as we know so far).
Since the title of the article is "IE and Konqueror bug makes SSL Insecure" and the article body says "IE and Konqueror don't both to check [sic] the issuer of this intermediate cert making SSL in both browsers something of a joke," then I would venture to say that they were not calling SSL in itself insecure. Let's try not to be nit-picky for the sake of being nit-picky.
Slashdot Mirror
That's OK, we had a guy try to steal some sodium from my high school...he put it in his pants pocket. Ouch!
Last I checked, you couldn't be held to a contract that required you to give up your constitutional rights. A person can not hold you to a contract that stipulates that you can not vote in an election, must become their slave, or will willingly go to jail without a jury trial if you don't hold up your end of the bargain.
Would that be a NIC card like an ATM Machine, or Windows 2000 being built on NT Technology?
Why let randmom chance decide? If nature got this far through unintelligent chance, just think how far we could go if we directed evolution through intelligent consideration (which, btw, we are doing anyway by not leaving our physically challenged to die shortly after birth like many animal species do).
Do you know how many geeks you file sharing? Guess how many of us download and install software, open a network sniffer, and watch the traffic that goes by... I guarantee that you'd have verification that Kazaa Lite included spyware within an hour of them adding it.
I don't work for the company (or even know anything about them), but this is how I assume that they are doing it--it's how I would do it (if I were a sell-out, low-life, rat-fink, evil bastard that is).
Again, if some type of security is added (like WEP), then proactive measures have to be taken to "break in"--much like building an RF scanning device would be the proactive measure that you would have to take to disarm the car alarm in you example.
Completely different. It would be more equivalent to shouting, "Hey! Will someone let me in their house?" And the person's butler (who they have given instructions to) opens the door and says, "Sure! Come on in!" There is no attempt at entering where it can be presumed that you should not. You merely requested an IP address from any source that would give you one. If someplace doesn't want "outsiders" to connect to their network, it is trivial to configure the access point to not hand them an IP. Merely turning on WEP (although completely insecure) would still show that "This network is off-limits."
In both of these instances, I believe that "truth is an absolute defense." IANAL
Now, if the lawyer just goes out for fun and tells the world that you have sex with sheep (and you do)--or the debt collector shows up and breaks your legs, then neither are guilty of extortion. The debt collector is guilty of assault, of course, but the lawyer has committed no crime (that I'm aware of).
Its only extortion if your threat is to do something illegal."
Not exactly. It is only extortion if you use fear or force to obtain what you want. You can carry out any of the threats to expose someone and it not be illegal--as long as you are not threatening them with exposure to procure some "property." Basically, it is the threat (used as leverage or a fear tactic) that is illegal.
IANAL
Science is an impartial search for knowledge and understanding. Falsifying the results of experiments is most definitely not science.
That said, I would recommend going back and getting a degree to anyone. Of course, I would be a professional student if I could afford it. If there is any way to horde your money so you don't have to work while going to school, do it. Live on ramen noodles for a year, go to the library and read for entertainment, find a good employee to run your business while you go to school (of course you'll have to watch that carefully), and then just move into a dorm, apply for financial aid/scholarships, and live a real college student life (my wife vetoed that for me... no dorm). Anyway, I wish you the best of luck.
Nope. WWIV was around during the '80s. I dialed up to several BBSs that ran it.
Before you think the moderator that moderated your post funny is an idiot, lets just say that informative and funny are right next to each other...
"YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?"
Perhaps if many Christians did not take the attitude that disagreement==persecution, they would be happier and seem less...fanatical. Your approach , makes it seem as though you think that the world is out to get you because of your religious beliefs, when, in fact, it is more likely to dislike you for your abrasive personality. Just my two cents...
The poster asked why someone with a technical/scientific mind would believe in a god. Faith is not a particularly "scientific" reason to belive something. Now, the only answer that Larry may be able to give could very well be "Faith," but hopefully he would be able to give some other information which would show a well reasoned, thoughtful opinion--as opposed to mere blind faith.
What, does he think that the universe revolves around his theories?
But, when the marketing/accounting/phb people keep breaking things by doing pointless, stupid, non-business-related shit, it pisses us off. Yes, VP Smith, I'm sure that you thought clicking the Naked Wife attatchment was a business related activity. BTW, you just killed the Exchange server. No one has been able to get their mail for the last three hours. Of course, we get chewed out because it happened. Even though we turned down in our request for the Exchange agent for our virus scanning software.
It always seems like everyone wants all the benefits of the great new technology without spending the money to do it right. They think, well this new widget has the features that would really make us more productive! Why can't we install it on the Domain Controller/Terminal Server(yes people actually do that-ARGH!)/Exchange Server? They forget, too, that if it wasn't for us they would still be doing everything on paper.
We realize that we wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the marketing/sales/etc people, but frankly you all do some really stupid shit (repeatedly). You blame us for things that are your fault. Guess what, we're salaried. Guess what? We were up until 4am fixing that last virus problem that you caused--not getting paid. Guess what? We don't get commissions, free lunches/dinners with clients, and don't get corporate sponsored vacations to the Bahamas.
No matter how you glorify your people skills, I can emulate them. All of my end-users like me because I pretend to like them. I'm cordial, congenial, and many even find me funny. Of course, being nice all day at work really drains me. 70 percent of the people I work with are idiots. Some of them may be nice idiots, but they are still idiots. I'm not just talking about computer skills, either. They are just not very intelligent. Its hard to respect the stupid.
So no, we don't tend to value people skills. Creativity on the other hand is something that almost all good techs that I have come across value deeply. Coming up with a creative, efficient, beautiful solution to a problem is highly regarded. Most of us are even fans of other creative enterprises: music, theater, art--we respect all of these. Junk mail, spam, lame commercials, and sales people who sell things that don't really exist that we have to implement some way for a customer--these things we have no respect for.
Well, I guess that's enough ranting. We know that the rest of you in "the enterprise" don't share our view, but thats because we have different values. It will probably always be that way.
Turns out, her husband had installed AOL on the machine and set up different name server settings (which makes it hard to connect to a Win2k domain controller that is only registered on the other name server).
After more checking, I agree. You are correct. Win32 API is not fundamentally broken. It is again, an implementation problem. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Win32 API is fundamentally flawed. SSL is not (as far as we know so far).
Or perhaps you should have read the FAQ instead.
Since the title of the article is "IE and Konqueror bug makes SSL Insecure" and the article body says "IE and Konqueror don't both to check [sic] the issuer of this intermediate cert making SSL in both browsers something of a joke," then I would venture to say that they were not calling SSL in itself insecure. Let's try not to be nit-picky for the sake of being nit-picky.
I prefer IP code bug voter.