You're preaching to the choir. I firmly believed that when I was a LAN administrator my responsibility was first to the integrity of the network and second to anything else.
Unfortunately IT professionals aren't in as much of a seller's market now as they were before. Getting another job isn't always as easy and beneficial as it used to be - and when you add in the new kids coming out of school looking for work, available IT positions can quickly become races to the bottom in terms of salary.
So as much as an admin would prefer to take the moral high ground, they also have to look out for number one. Everything is a trade-off nowadays, unfortunately.
your employer's passwords are NOT yours, no matter how stupid you think your boss is.
Refusing to give out passwords to higher-ups is not always the wrong thing to do. If you are the network admin, and your job is to maintain security of the network, wouldn't it be reasonable to refuse to hand out passwords to people outside of the network administration roles?
Although I can say that an admin can make that choice at his or her own peril. After all, the higher-ups can always opt to fire the admin and replace him or her with someone who is willing to seek security of their job over security of the network they are paid to administer.
Now that I am at work, where I have access to cell, I can read the article and attempt to explain its significance. I will attempt to do this without violating copyright - although I see the work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which requires that the papers be released to the public (within a certain time frame).
The paper mentions that the species barrier has been crossed by some prions (BSE) but not others (scrapies). They are looking for a way to show cross-species interactions without having to use whole organisms. One of their findings was a "novel" prion by using cell extract of two different species (mouse and hamster).
They also commented that there is no current method for predicting which prions will cross species barriers - after all it is driven by a protein-protein interaction, as the prion-based conditions carry no genetic component of infection.
They further mentioned that their in vitro work showed prions can move across the species barriers without cellular material, generating unique prions in this manner. From my perspective, I would say this could be one of the more significant parts of the study - it could mean that the prions are stable enough to not need a cellular carrier, and could potentially be picked up through secondary contact.
For those with access to the journal Cell, you can view The Castilla, et al, paper online (this abstract should be available for all). The nature link in the summary goes to a write-up about the article, not the actual article itself.
Netgear wireless routers-they're out of this world!
I noticed that in the story as well. Then I thought "you can't even buy advertising like that" - until I figured they probably did buy their spot on the ISS.
Either way, very keen placement of their name in the article.
nor should people who travel have to fear such ridiculously expensive prices.
I will say that travelers don't really have to fear this. I say this as a New Yorker who travels to Canada on average three times a year. There is a simple tactic to avoid these egregious bills.
Don't use your cell phone if you don't have to.
Sure, sometimes you will be in a situation where it is imperative to place a call immediately and only your cell phone will do. But most calls can wait, at least by my experience. And even the most crucial calls can be kept short (particularly when cost is an issue).
So I have, so far, found that calling cards are an excellent way to deal with this. Generally any convenience store can sell me a calling card for $5 that will give me more long distance time to the states or Canada for a week. By contrast, $5 on the cell phone, while roaming internationally, would go less than 3 minutes.
And if you really, really, need a cell phone, they have pre-paid wireless up there, too. Sure it means you'll carry two phones, but at least you'll be in full control of your phone costs, which for some people (like me) is more than worth the inconvenience.
Didn't you see the commercials with the guy ordering a computer? None of the people in the factory were nationalities that are frequently outsourced to.
Yeah, because of course the factories in commercials are always the real factories, with the real employees.
After all, commercials are shot by television and/or hollywood people - and we know they would never lie to us...
Precisely. Though it took me a while to figure that out. I saw the ad last night and though "what the hell was that"? Except unlike the show, the ad wasn't funny, didn't relate to life as I ever knew it, and didn't make me want to see more.
I wonder if perhaps Microsoft hired the same marketing geniuses from IBM that used the old ladies saying "I just totally warped my files" as an ad for OS/2?
Aren't the editors the ones who post the stories? If they feel that facebook is this important, it doesn't matter how many of us disagree; we'll be subjected to this crap anyway. Just searching for slashdot stories tagged 'facebook' gives a very long list, and an indication of how much people seem to value it around here.
there is no law that covers the NRA's incorporation, no by-laws that state the terms of their meetings. Happy?
No.
You are completely mis-interpreting my words if you think that is what I am after.
I am trying to get you to actually back up your neocon talking points, rather than just repeating them ad naseum. Instead you have given up because you can't be bothered to actually find the text of the law that you are so certain about. Really, if you know this law so well it should be trivial for your to find the relevant text of the law to show why the NRA did what they did.
And just for you I rented Sicko today
Return it. Don't start watching his movies now, this one will only piss you off in the way that Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine likely would have - had you actually watched them.
And besides, it will probably just cause you to send more expletive-laden messages to me, more claims that you cannot and will not back up with meaningful, factual evidence.
I don't want to see another reply from you. I could have a more interesting conversation with my dog. Even if she went rabid and bit me, it would be less irritating than having you fling expletives and insults at me. And even my dog doesn't try to force canned GOP talking points on people.
There is the first thing you've said that I agree with! Congratulations!
Though back to the issue at hand...
Can you actually find the part of the non-profit law that you need in order to justify your venomous monologue? Can you actually find a passage that refers to a legal requirement for meetings, frequencies, and attendance? Can you find what is at risk if the meeting isn't held? Can you find where this requirement for a 10-day notice of rescheduling that you are so dead certain of occurs?
or it was purposeful misdirection or an effort to simply frustrate me
Fascinating case of the pot calling the kettle black, here. Do you even remember what we had started out discussing? We were talking about the economy when your hatred for Michael Moore came rearing out from nowhere.
No, your questions don't even have anything to do with what the law is.
Simply wrong. My questions have everything to do with the law and its relevance to the situation. It is quite interesting that you keep insisting that this law is so easy to find, yet you have not managed to find it yourself.
How can we possibly know the relevance of this law if we don't have its text? We don't know what the law says - so how could we possibly know if the NRA would be in violation of it?
I will take your failure to find the text of the law as your admission that you don't know anything about the law you are trying to make such a big deal out of. And your argument that I am trying to distract you simply doesn't hold any water - after all you were the one who brought up this law. And if you can't provide any information to back up your "argument" that this law is so important, then there is no reason to place any faith in anything else you have said.
If you can't find the text and history of this law that you feel is so important, then don't bother replying again. You have already failed to meet this simple request several times now. If you fail again, why should there be any value to anything else you say in this context?
I'm sorry, I guess the jurisdiction for an entity incorporated under New York law might be New Mexico, or maybe even Albania. I guess the Russian Duma was responsible for the law and a Boy Scout chapter in Ohio is responsible for its enforcement.
Creative answer.
I'll accept that to mean that you don't know where to find the law that you want to refer to in your attack on Moore. Which means we won't be able to determine its true relevance. But if you want to leave it at that, then I guess we can just agree to throw out your argument entirely, because you cannot defend it if you cannot actually provide the law and its terms.
This is a standard liberal tactic
Fascinating. You throw around that term as if
A it was true and well-based
It was an insult
Though if you pay attention to what you have said, in comparison to what I have said, any reasonable person would conclude that you are much more of a conservative republican than I am of a democrat.
If you were actually reasonable, rather than strictly partisan and emotional, you would actually come up with an answer to my question. Instead I can count on seeing another attack from you in your next response, and likely one that is neither well-rooted or well-related to our original topic of discussion.
I agree with that, particularly based on the regular intervals between the attempts. And I've seen it before, too.
However, my question for you is whether or not anything is accomplished by blocking these addresses. I haven't seen the addresses come back later, so I'm not sure there is value in blocking them. It seems like you just end up with a ridiculously long list of rules in iptables.
If there is something that I am missing, please let me know.
I think that all depends on the quality of the end product. There have been other consumer products where the Chinese have attempted to clone and mass-produce something made in the states, only to end up with dismal QC and a product that was simply trash. If this "godson" chip ends up junk (or mostly junk) then it might have no appreciable benefit for the consumer.
Wow, you start with an insult, follow with condescension, and then offer up speculation instead of answers to the questions.
Hey, if this law is so easy to find, why haven't you found it yet? You're the one who claims it is so damned important - so it should be very easy for you to come up with. But yet you haven't.
Not sure if you're having the same experience that I am or not. I have a system at home that acts as a (FreeBSD) web server. Periodically I'll see single days where 300+ individual systems will attempt to get in via ssh. According to/var/log/messages, each system tries on average one user name and then gives up.
Of course quite a few of them are trying root (which any smart admin will disable for remote access), but nonetheless I see a lot of this.
My question for you though is whether or not it is even worthwhile to blacklist and lock out these systems. It seems like they only try once and give up - I suspect that locking all these out could end up just producing an obscenely long list of firewall rules that might not necessarily solve anything.
Feel free to let me know if you think I'm missing something, or if you are seeing something different in your traffic.
Granted, I don't know just how bad they were down there - I'm one who still hasn't forgiven Florida for the 2000 election debacle.
But I consider McCain's "unconditionally talking to foreign leaders" ad to be weighted, misleading, and highly negative. And I thought McCain promised he wouldn't get involved in negative campaigning and attack ads, didn't he? Well, he's endorsing attack ads right here on slashdot...
Slashdot Mirror
You're preaching to the choir. I firmly believed that when I was a LAN administrator my responsibility was first to the integrity of the network and second to anything else.
Unfortunately IT professionals aren't in as much of a seller's market now as they were before. Getting another job isn't always as easy and beneficial as it used to be - and when you add in the new kids coming out of school looking for work, available IT positions can quickly become races to the bottom in terms of salary.
So as much as an admin would prefer to take the moral high ground, they also have to look out for number one. Everything is a trade-off nowadays, unfortunately.
your employer's passwords are NOT yours, no matter how stupid you think your boss is.
Refusing to give out passwords to higher-ups is not always the wrong thing to do. If you are the network admin, and your job is to maintain security of the network, wouldn't it be reasonable to refuse to hand out passwords to people outside of the network administration roles?
Although I can say that an admin can make that choice at his or her own peril. After all, the higher-ups can always opt to fire the admin and replace him or her with someone who is willing to seek security of their job over security of the network they are paid to administer.
Now that I am at work, where I have access to cell, I can read the article and attempt to explain its significance. I will attempt to do this without violating copyright - although I see the work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which requires that the papers be released to the public (within a certain time frame).
The paper mentions that the species barrier has been crossed by some prions (BSE) but not others (scrapies). They are looking for a way to show cross-species interactions without having to use whole organisms. One of their findings was a "novel" prion by using cell extract of two different species (mouse and hamster).
They also commented that there is no current method for predicting which prions will cross species barriers - after all it is driven by a protein-protein interaction, as the prion-based conditions carry no genetic component of infection.
They further mentioned that their in vitro work showed prions can move across the species barriers without cellular material, generating unique prions in this manner. From my perspective, I would say this could be one of the more significant parts of the study - it could mean that the prions are stable enough to not need a cellular carrier, and could potentially be picked up through secondary contact.
For those with access to the journal Cell, you can view The Castilla, et al, paper online (this abstract should be available for all). The nature link in the summary goes to a write-up about the article, not the actual article itself.
Those with subscriptions to Cell can also get the full text, Full Text in PDF, and the Supplementary Data.
Netgear wireless routers-they're out of this world!
I noticed that in the story as well. Then I thought "you can't even buy advertising like that" - until I figured they probably did buy their spot on the ISS.
Either way, very keen placement of their name in the article.
nor should people who travel have to fear such ridiculously expensive prices.
I will say that travelers don't really have to fear this. I say this as a New Yorker who travels to Canada on average three times a year. There is a simple tactic to avoid these egregious bills.
Don't use your cell phone if you don't have to.
Sure, sometimes you will be in a situation where it is imperative to place a call immediately and only your cell phone will do. But most calls can wait, at least by my experience. And even the most crucial calls can be kept short (particularly when cost is an issue).
So I have, so far, found that calling cards are an excellent way to deal with this. Generally any convenience store can sell me a calling card for $5 that will give me more long distance time to the states or Canada for a week. By contrast, $5 on the cell phone, while roaming internationally, would go less than 3 minutes.
And if you really, really, need a cell phone, they have pre-paid wireless up there, too. Sure it means you'll carry two phones, but at least you'll be in full control of your phone costs, which for some people (like me) is more than worth the inconvenience.
Didn't you see the commercials with the guy ordering a computer? None of the people in the factory were nationalities that are frequently outsourced to.
Yeah, because of course the factories in commercials are always the real factories, with the real employees.
After all, commercials are shot by television and/or hollywood people - and we know they would never lie to us...
The company owns factories in Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Ireland, India, China, Brazil, Malaysia and Lodz, Poland
I was surprised that they still did manufacturing in the states. I didn't really expect that any PC makers still did.
Is there a story behind this picture? It might be worthwhile to know how that computer ended up that way.
original show was about characters with no redeeming value and that didn't care about anyone but themselves
As opposed to all those other sitcoms that were filled with selfless characters of great value and valor.
It's an "Ad about Nothing"!
Precisely. Though it took me a while to figure that out. I saw the ad last night and though "what the hell was that"? Except unlike the show, the ad wasn't funny, didn't relate to life as I ever knew it, and didn't make me want to see more.
I wonder if perhaps Microsoft hired the same marketing geniuses from IBM that used the old ladies saying "I just totally warped my files" as an ad for OS/2?
Could the editors please put a stop to this?
Aren't the editors the ones who post the stories? If they feel that facebook is this important, it doesn't matter how many of us disagree; we'll be subjected to this crap anyway. Just searching for slashdot stories tagged 'facebook' gives a very long list, and an indication of how much people seem to value it around here.
you are not a zombie craven to facebook
Speak for yourself. There are (frighteningly) many, many, who are.
there is no law that covers the NRA's incorporation, no by-laws that state the terms of their meetings. Happy?
No.
You are completely mis-interpreting my words if you think that is what I am after.
I am trying to get you to actually back up your neocon talking points, rather than just repeating them ad naseum. Instead you have given up because you can't be bothered to actually find the text of the law that you are so certain about. Really, if you know this law so well it should be trivial for your to find the relevant text of the law to show why the NRA did what they did.
And just for you I rented Sicko today
Return it. Don't start watching his movies now, this one will only piss you off in the way that Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine likely would have - had you actually watched them.
And besides, it will probably just cause you to send more expletive-laden messages to me, more claims that you cannot and will not back up with meaningful, factual evidence.
I don't want to see another reply from you. I could have a more interesting conversation with my dog. Even if she went rabid and bit me, it would be less irritating than having you fling expletives and insults at me. And even my dog doesn't try to force canned GOP talking points on people.
Didn't carry the gun out of the bank.
There is the first thing you've said that I agree with! Congratulations!
Though back to the issue at hand...
Can you actually find the part of the non-profit law that you need in order to justify your venomous monologue? Can you actually find a passage that refers to a legal requirement for meetings, frequencies, and attendance? Can you find what is at risk if the meeting isn't held? Can you find where this requirement for a 10-day notice of rescheduling that you are so dead certain of occurs?
start here [findlaw.com].
Did you even read that law?
In particular, this section states that a corporation for that law is a for-profit. The NRA is listed as a non-profit.
Keep trying. I'll keep waiting, though I certainly won't be holding my breath.
or it was purposeful misdirection or an effort to simply frustrate me
Fascinating case of the pot calling the kettle black, here. Do you even remember what we had started out discussing? We were talking about the economy when your hatred for Michael Moore came rearing out from nowhere.
No, your questions don't even have anything to do with what the law is.
Simply wrong. My questions have everything to do with the law and its relevance to the situation. It is quite interesting that you keep insisting that this law is so easy to find, yet you have not managed to find it yourself.
How can we possibly know the relevance of this law if we don't have its text? We don't know what the law says - so how could we possibly know if the NRA would be in violation of it?
I will take your failure to find the text of the law as your admission that you don't know anything about the law you are trying to make such a big deal out of. And your argument that I am trying to distract you simply doesn't hold any water - after all you were the one who brought up this law. And if you can't provide any information to back up your "argument" that this law is so important, then there is no reason to place any faith in anything else you have said.
If you can't find the text and history of this law that you feel is so important, then don't bother replying again. You have already failed to meet this simple request several times now. If you fail again, why should there be any value to anything else you say in this context?
I'm sorry, I guess the jurisdiction for an entity incorporated under New York law might be New Mexico, or maybe even Albania. I guess the Russian Duma was responsible for the law and a Boy Scout chapter in Ohio is responsible for its enforcement.
Creative answer.
I'll accept that to mean that you don't know where to find the law that you want to refer to in your attack on Moore. Which means we won't be able to determine its true relevance. But if you want to leave it at that, then I guess we can just agree to throw out your argument entirely, because you cannot defend it if you cannot actually provide the law and its terms.
This is a standard liberal tactic
Fascinating. You throw around that term as if
Though if you pay attention to what you have said, in comparison to what I have said, any reasonable person would conclude that you are much more of a conservative republican than I am of a democrat.
If you were actually reasonable, rather than strictly partisan and emotional, you would actually come up with an answer to my question. Instead I can count on seeing another attack from you in your next response, and likely one that is neither well-rooted or well-related to our original topic of discussion.
It appears to be coordinated.
I agree with that, particularly based on the regular intervals between the attempts. And I've seen it before, too.
However, my question for you is whether or not anything is accomplished by blocking these addresses. I haven't seen the addresses come back later, so I'm not sure there is value in blocking them. It seems like you just end up with a ridiculously long list of rules in iptables.
If there is something that I am missing, please let me know.
The DRM will be broken as soon as the first reasonably intelligent person
who doesn't already own a copy of ghostbusters
gets his or her hands on one.
Which probably makes for a rather small set of people.
Great for the end consumer, however.
I think that all depends on the quality of the end product. There have been other consumer products where the Chinese have attempted to clone and mass-produce something made in the states, only to end up with dismal QC and a product that was simply trash. If this "godson" chip ends up junk (or mostly junk) then it might have no appreciable benefit for the consumer.
Wow, you start with an insult, follow with condescension, and then offer up speculation instead of answers to the questions.
Hey, if this law is so easy to find, why haven't you found it yet? You're the one who claims it is so damned important - so it should be very easy for you to come up with. But yet you haven't.
Not sure if you're having the same experience that I am or not. I have a system at home that acts as a (FreeBSD) web server. Periodically I'll see single days where 300+ individual systems will attempt to get in via ssh. According to /var/log/messages, each system tries on average one user name and then gives up.
Of course quite a few of them are trying root (which any smart admin will disable for remote access), but nonetheless I see a lot of this.
My question for you though is whether or not it is even worthwhile to blacklist and lock out these systems. It seems like they only try once and give up - I suspect that locking all these out could end up just producing an obscenely long list of firewall rules that might not necessarily solve anything.
Feel free to let me know if you think I'm missing something, or if you are seeing something different in your traffic.
Has anyone written a program to trick it into working properly via the Internet? --
Someone did that about a decade ago, fortunately it is still available, for $20 for pretty much forever.
Granted, I don't know just how bad they were down there - I'm one who still hasn't forgiven Florida for the 2000 election debacle.
But I consider McCain's "unconditionally talking to foreign leaders" ad to be weighted, misleading, and highly negative. And I thought McCain promised he wouldn't get involved in negative campaigning and attack ads, didn't he? Well, he's endorsing attack ads right here on slashdot...