At this point, installing Mac "antivirus" is probably the most surefire way to get some crapware or virus. Although I guess you could go with norton (not sure how thats materially different from those).
If you are able to firewall a service off completely and have the system still work then that service is simply not required!
That is not correct. A service may be designed to interact with other services over certain ports, even locally, in order to make it truly network transparent. Those ports may be firewalled to block any access not coming from 127.0.0.1; thats different than it being totally disabled.
Try this as an experiment-- launch httpd, then try to launch another service that wants to bind to port 80. It will fail to launch because it cannot access that port, even if it would have launched with that port firewalled.
"This file could damage your computer!" warning when you try an execute a downloaded file. Linux has no equivalent, but I'm not going to pretend that this feature provides more security than making files non-executable by default.
Except that until very recent Ubuntus, and possibly still on other distros,.desktop files had execute by default with no warning; and whats worse those files could masquerade as anything with any icon.
Windows uses file extensions to identify file types, and hides them by default, making social engineering attacks more likely (nude_girl.jpg.exe !), on windows simply downloading a file which has a name ending in.exe makes it executable, whereas on linux you require an additional step.
Silly me, I had thought that Gnome hid.desktop extensions and (until very recently) marked them executable with no warning by a simple doubleclick. Further, you could make the file claim to be named whatever you want and hide the FULL filename by tinkering with the settings in the.desktop.
Thats right, virus.sh.desktop could look like a script icon and claim to be backup_home.sh.
Not sure it makes sense to compare Konqueror with adblock to Windows: there are numerous browsers with adblock available for Windows, and Konqueror lacks sandboxing (which IE has). You could get Chrome for Fedora, but then you could do that for Windows as well.
Second, Windows is now more secure than before b/c of all the security features/paradigms that were 'inspired' by Unix/Linux/BSD/etc.
Possibly youre mistaking my post for a "Gates better than Linus" troll post (certainly the mods have read it that way). Im just saying, right now, if you are being targetted by someone @ Pwn2Own, I dont think there is a significant difference between Windows and Linux from a security standpoint.
Recall that story from 2-3 years back where a specially crafted PDF file opens Calc on windows and xcalc on Linux when you view it (arbitrary code execution), and remember that the most popular attack platforms-- Flash, Java, PDF-- tend to be installed on all desktop platforms; and then look at the list of protections that each platform offeres, and the field looks a lot more level.
At least one such witness had her testimony rewritten by police to claim it was Zimmerman and called them out on it. If every story you've read "agrees" that these are the facts, then you've limited yourself to a small number of very dubious sources.
I was just going based on what Ive seen on TV, and a quick pre-post google search on "zimmerman" (was actually trying to verify if Zimmerman had called the police to report the shooting or not; It sounds like he did not).
My source is basically "google zimmerman"; whats yours? I the closest Ive seen to what you suggest is articles that mention that one witness heard Zimmerman call for help, that others say they think it must have been Martin (but no indication as to whether they were actually present-- Martin's mom for example indicated that she thought it was Martin who called for help, even though I dont recall here being anywhere close to the scene).
If an armed, threatening, home intruder is shot by a home owner, did the home owner initiate the attack simply because the intruder hadn't yet touched him?
Thats far different: Castle doctrine (or whatever it is called wherever you are) generally indicates that if someone invades your home in a threatening manner, you have a strong defense for fighting them off.
But in a public place, just because someone appears threatening to you does not give you permission to physically attack them. If you recall, Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious initially, but I dont think you would be excusing HIM if he had thrown the first punch.
Regardless, even Castle Doctrine would not help if after you had incapacitated the threat you proceeded to slam their head against the ground several times; look at cases where someone defends themselves, incapacitates the attacker, and then fires 6 additional shots at their unconscious body. What would have become possible self defense turns into clear cut murder. Likewise, any claim of self defense for martin goes out the window when he batters Zimmerman's head against the ground (which is what Zimmerman claims, and the police corroborate).
Any person who believes in a right to self defense cannot possibly argue that Trayvon was in the wrong to defend himself against such a person,
Im not aware of a law that permits you to physically batter someone because you perceive them as stalking you. Stand your ground laws allow you to refuse to retreat, but Im not aware of them permitting you to initiate an attack.
you can't even understand that the Zimmerman/Trayvon can be Zimmerman's fault without him being evil.
Im not saying that at all, nor am i putting words in your mouth. Im saying that this has been painted by initial reports entirely one way, and huge cracks are showing in that initial "Zimmerman racial assault" story.
even if they encourage you to hide them behind a firewall - a kludge at best
Firewalls are a kludge now? And when you say "encourage", you mean that it blocks them all by default?
Linux has a repository from which to install software, while windows encourages users to download and run arbitrary binaries.
I never said Linux doesnt have any cool features that Windows lacks. Repositories on Windows would be awesome. But we're not exactly talking "system security" any more; we're discussing systems of trust and methods of acquiring executable code. On most desktop linux installs (and many server installs) that I've done, I've had to download a.deb or.rpm file or else install a 3rd party repo for some program that wasnt in the base repos. Thats really not much different than downloading an exe from a known trusted site-- I often download files off of nirsoft.net or sysinternals.com or the major vendor sites (firefox, adobe, google, microsoft), and I dont see it as much different than using a repository (in both situations you have to trust that the vendor's server has not been compromised).
Repos on windows ARE the biggest thing on my wishlist, all that said.
Windows has things like stack randomization and non executable pages, but so does linux and has done for much longer.
DEP was enabled in windows apparently about the same time as it was for Linux. I had thought that ASLR was introduced in Windows first and Linux later, but it seems Linux was first there-- though wikipedia notes it was a "weak form" (not really sure what is meant by that). Its kind of irrelevant though, Im discussing the status NOW. I think this article puts it well-- "I think the question is far more complex right now actually. For example, what constitutes "Linux" or "Windows"? If we're talking only about the kernel, then they're about the same (both extremely secure). They've certainly made different design decisions, but at the end of the day kernel exploits for either OS are extremely rare."
Take group policy "folder restrictions" for instance, designed to prevent you browsing certain areas of the filesystem (eg the windows dir, or the root of the hd), and sure enough if you type c:\ into explorer you will get an error... But what if you open a subdir (eg browse the temporary internet files dir using the option within the ie settings), and then keep hitting the up option..
Microsoft freely admits that that particular GPO (and others like it) are not security options. If you want security for that, use the NTFS "list directory contents" and "traverse folder" ACL settings. I am not aware of analogues for Linux ext3/4, incidentally.
Linux doesnt have "features" like these because they are pointless, if you want to prevent users from accessing a given area you need to use file permissions.
I think there are some rare use cases for that particular GPO: perhaps you prefer to prevent users from seeing that a particular folder exists or what its contents are, but it is necessary that their account have permissions to access those files (for instance, you dont wish them to be able to see or delete temp files, though it is absolutely necessary that their account be able to read / write / execute data in that folder).. At any rate, NTFS has far more granular ACL controls than ext2/3/4, and can easily do what you talk about. And I wouldnt exactly boast about the lack of GPO support; GPOs are IMO one of the most powerful features of Windows. Being able to deploy a policy that says, for example, deny "execute" permission to any file not in C:\Windows and C:\Program Files, or else to publish a whitelist of executable hashes that are permitted to run, is pretty darn powerful.
Zimmerman's behavior may have been over the top (but at this point basically everyone is speculating on facts that havent been fully available yet), but right now all that seems clear from any news source ive seen is the following:
* Zimmerman for whatever reason decided that Trayvon was suspicious, and called 911. * 911 told him either that it was not necessary to follow Trayvon, or else that he needed to desist from following Trayvon. * ZImmerman did not. * Subsequently, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. There has been no evidence that I am aware of that indicates that ZImmerman initiated any physical interaction; the police statement and witness story is that Trayvon fired the initial punch and proceeded to slam his head into the pavement * At some point during all of this Zimmerman called for help. * At some point during this Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.
Basically every story you find will agree that those are the alleged facts, and the police agree that these match the evidence, and witness statements of a person in distress followed by a gunshot.
You're free to take issue with Zimmerman following Martin, but that in no way gives license to a physical assault; and I dont think there are very many places that would find for a murder charge (as opposed to self defense) if the whole "slamming head against pavement" thing checks out. You're also free to cry "media and police conspiracy", except that the media seem to be trying as hard as possible to paint this as an innocent grade A student getting murdered by a white vigilante when, more and more, its coming out how far from the truth that is.
My understanding (seemingly validated by googling "guardian trifigura superinjunction") is that an injunction WAS obtained from a judge that legally restrained Guardian from publishing details about the Trifigura scandal, as well as from even mentioning that such injunction existed.
When a parliament member spoke about the issue as an attempt to bypass that injunction, Trifigura's legal team (Carter ruck) asserted that the existing injunction applied to said speech as well and that any attempt to report on what was said in parliament would be met with legal action under that injunction.
It is up in the air that they would have been successful, but the effect was in fact that Guardian felt unable to report on the case until Carter Ruck withdrew that threat and the news had already gotten out.
The concept of "chilling effect" does not require that censorship actually be enforced; threatened legal action in a system with heavy libel laws and such injunctions is enough to cause media to self censor.
And if your black you can apparently jump someone and slam their head into concrete and then receive the martyr treatment, so long as your shooter was (questionably) white.
Seriously, you want to play the race card in a self-defense shooting between a hispanic and an african american?
You're living in a country without freedom of speech right now.
Anyone who says this should be made to do a 4 week mandatory tour of the world, looking for this mecca of free speech that they seem to imagine exists. The US is among the top countries in the world regarding free speech, and countries with any sort of free speech are in the minority.
Go talk with the billions in India, Russia, and China about free speech and right to protest, and then contemplate that North America and Western Europe may have problems but are a far sight better than what about 70% of the world lives with. Bonus for those complaining about the 1% is when you realize that by living in these areas (NA, W. EU) you place yourselves among the top 5% economically in the world. You ARE the 5%.
Regarding the Occupy guys, what a joke. They illegally occupied private property for months waiting and hoping for a police response, and they finally got their wish after ignoring eviction orders. For all the flak Tea Partiers got, at least they got permits and permission for their demonstrations; why are the occupy folks exempt from such laws?
For the record, just because the national mall (or a park on Pennsylvania Ave) is "public property" doesnt mean you can break out a coleman tent, set up a bonfire, and declare it your residence indefinately. Public property means that everyone can have access to it, rather than you monopolizing it for your group for months on end.
The bottom line is, the UK takes racism more seriously than the US
The bottom line is the US takes free speech and the dangers of state censorship (or superinjunctions, or frivilous libel suits) more seriously than the UK, apparently. Im not aware of the US government being able to direct legislators on what they may not speak on, or preventing a news outlet from reporting on what is said in an open session of Congress.
Our culture is one of excessive indulgences and avoiding responsibility.
Ours was founded on avoiding recreating the type of government we fled from 200 years ago.
I would say that depends on whether the school wants to be known as having a standard of integrity or not. If they do, kicking students out for such comments as a violation of school code doesnt seem unreasonable.
He did not make comments that would induce a dangerous panic. He did not offer dangerous or illegal medical advice. He did not make any statements of fact that could be construed as defamation or libel.
He simply made insults of a racial nature. That isnt illegal in the US. It isnt illegal to say "I hope X dies today because he is a [slur]" (although if you later get in an altercation with him it will probably be labeled, controversially, a hate crime), because in the US we have the notion that once someone can restrict speech which is unlikely to cause "imminent danger", its a very small step to outlawing speech that the current powers that be deem subversive-- for instance, libertarian speech during the current administration's term.
You can make various arguments about whether the Red Scare had some truth behind it and whether communism really was a threat, but you can see from that historical time what COULD happen if the winds blow in a different direction. Once you start outlawing speech that cannot cause immediate harm, why not outlaw Democratic opinion as subversive during Bush's term, and Republican speech as UnAmerican during a Democrat term?
Linux can be remarkably secure, but your standard desktop install probably lags behind Windows in security. Go and stack up the security features built into Mint or Fedora, and then compare with WIndows 7 x64, and it doesnt look as onesided as you might think.
Theyre saying part of the increase is the fact that building vertical allows capturing more sunlight in seasons and hours when the sun is closer to the horizon. Normally those hours are colder because less sunlight is making it to the ground, due to the low angle of incidence; this mitigates some of that problem.
Its the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect.
I think the idea is that they dont want you making assumptions about the evidence or facts of the case based on your evidence. For instance, your experience might tell you that it is very rare for such an automobile to have a suspension failure. But your expertise in that area hasnt been vetted by the court, and you might attempt to influence the other jurors with your informed guess in a way that would subvert the process.
DD-WRT router. Sometimes the webGUI breaks, and SSH may not be available due to problem, but telnet will let you in as an easy password recovery option. You know the username (ALWAYS root when telnetting to DD-WRT), which can make guessing the password easier. Additionally, its gonna be pretty hard to MITM a direct connection from your workstation to the router, and I dont think youd have much luck trying to trick the router into flooding the frame to all ports (is it possible to get the router to drop its own MAC from its ARP table?).
Of course I would only ever enable it on the LAN.
There may be other situations, like wanting access between routers on a network that is ACL'd-- I could probably come up with a plausible scenario where not all of the routers are capable of initiating SSH, and security controls do not allow direct connections to all devices. A secure alternative might be having ACLs that only allow SSH tunnels into one of the devices, and from there telnetting to whichever router you want. Only security risk would be if someone had physical access to the links between the routers, and as we all remember physical access is 8/10ths of security.
And what Im saying is that Im unaware of any engines comparable to this. Comparing a destructable environment game engine to one relying mostly on scripting just doesnt make sense.
did the soviets win? why not just start asking for blowjobs from applicants while at it? it's not prostitution because it's a phase of a job interview?
Part of the whole "soviets didnt win" thing is that a lot of states are right to work: You are free to leave your job at any time, and your (prospective) employer is free to show you the door at any time.
Part of freedom means that society doesnt owe you a darn thing.
I only had this problem on machines without any graphics acceleration, or a ridiculously small amount of memory.
I havent seen very many games like minecraft-- fully open-ended map with a fully destructable and constructable enviornment-- so Im not sure what game you are comparing it to. Keep in mind that with far vision, you are loading a huge number of blocks at the horizon, and the game needs to have terrain in memory beyond that unless you want massive drive thrashing when you move in that direction; and that it also needs to have in memory blocks beneath the surface for when you dig or cause an explosion.
You claim there are games that do better-- like what?
He starts games, makes promises, and then doesn't finish them
Im curious what promise he didnt keep. The only promise he made that I am aware of was adding a dragon, and unless I am mistaken there IS in fact a dragon in game.
The game also cost a whopping $10 and received oodles of updates for free, and has more content than many $60 games. What exactly are you complaining about? The fact that there are mods?
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, installing Mac "antivirus" is probably the most surefire way to get some crapware or virus. Although I guess you could go with norton (not sure how thats materially different from those).
For the record, it was a rootkit, not a virus. The terms are already muddy as all getout, but there IS a difference.
If you are able to firewall a service off completely and have the system still work then that service is simply not required!
That is not correct. A service may be designed to interact with other services over certain ports, even locally, in order to make it truly network transparent. Those ports may be firewalled to block any access not coming from 127.0.0.1; thats different than it being totally disabled.
Try this as an experiment-- launch httpd, then try to launch another service that wants to bind to port 80. It will fail to launch because it cannot access that port, even if it would have launched with that port firewalled.
"This file could damage your computer!" warning when you try an execute a downloaded file. Linux has no equivalent, but I'm not going to pretend that this feature provides more security than making files non-executable by default.
Except that until very recent Ubuntus, and possibly still on other distros, .desktop files had execute by default with no warning; and whats worse those files could masquerade as anything with any icon.
Windows uses file extensions to identify file types, and hides them by default, making social engineering attacks more likely (nude_girl.jpg.exe !), on windows simply downloading a file which has a name ending in .exe makes it executable, whereas on linux you require an additional step.
Silly me, I had thought that Gnome hid .desktop extensions and (until very recently) marked them executable with no warning by a simple doubleclick. Further, you could make the file claim to be named whatever you want and hide the FULL filename by tinkering with the settings in the .desktop.
Thats right, virus.sh.desktop could look like a script icon and claim to be backup_home.sh.
Not sure it makes sense to compare Konqueror with adblock to Windows: there are numerous browsers with adblock available for Windows, and Konqueror lacks sandboxing (which IE has). You could get Chrome for Fedora, but then you could do that for Windows as well.
Second, Windows is now more secure than before b/c of all the security features/paradigms that were 'inspired' by Unix/Linux/BSD/etc.
Possibly youre mistaking my post for a "Gates better than Linus" troll post (certainly the mods have read it that way). Im just saying, right now, if you are being targetted by someone @ Pwn2Own, I dont think there is a significant difference between Windows and Linux from a security standpoint.
Recall that story from 2-3 years back where a specially crafted PDF file opens Calc on windows and xcalc on Linux when you view it (arbitrary code execution), and remember that the most popular attack platforms-- Flash, Java, PDF-- tend to be installed on all desktop platforms; and then look at the list of protections that each platform offeres, and the field looks a lot more level.
At least one such witness had her testimony rewritten by police to claim it was Zimmerman and called them out on it. If every story you've read "agrees" that these are the facts, then you've limited yourself to a small number of very dubious sources.
I was just going based on what Ive seen on TV, and a quick pre-post google search on "zimmerman" (was actually trying to verify if Zimmerman had called the police to report the shooting or not; It sounds like he did not).
My source is basically "google zimmerman"; whats yours? I the closest Ive seen to what you suggest is articles that mention that one witness heard Zimmerman call for help, that others say they think it must have been Martin (but no indication as to whether they were actually present-- Martin's mom for example indicated that she thought it was Martin who called for help, even though I dont recall here being anywhere close to the scene).
If an armed, threatening, home intruder is shot by a home owner, did the home owner initiate the attack simply because the intruder hadn't yet touched him?
Thats far different: Castle doctrine (or whatever it is called wherever you are) generally indicates that if someone invades your home in a threatening manner, you have a strong defense for fighting them off.
But in a public place, just because someone appears threatening to you does not give you permission to physically attack them. If you recall, Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious initially, but I dont think you would be excusing HIM if he had thrown the first punch.
Regardless, even Castle Doctrine would not help if after you had incapacitated the threat you proceeded to slam their head against the ground several times; look at cases where someone defends themselves, incapacitates the attacker, and then fires 6 additional shots at their unconscious body. What would have become possible self defense turns into clear cut murder. Likewise, any claim of self defense for martin goes out the window when he batters Zimmerman's head against the ground (which is what Zimmerman claims, and the police corroborate).
Any person who believes in a right to self defense cannot possibly argue that Trayvon was in the wrong to defend himself against such a person,
Im not aware of a law that permits you to physically batter someone because you perceive them as stalking you. Stand your ground laws allow you to refuse to retreat, but Im not aware of them permitting you to initiate an attack.
you can't even understand that the Zimmerman/Trayvon can be Zimmerman's fault without him being evil.
Im not saying that at all, nor am i putting words in your mouth. Im saying that this has been painted by initial reports entirely one way, and huge cracks are showing in that initial "Zimmerman racial assault" story.
even if they encourage you to hide them behind a firewall - a kludge at best
Firewalls are a kludge now? And when you say "encourage", you mean that it blocks them all by default?
Linux has a repository from which to install software, while windows encourages users to download and run arbitrary binaries.
I never said Linux doesnt have any cool features that Windows lacks. Repositories on Windows would be awesome. But we're not exactly talking "system security" any more; we're discussing systems of trust and methods of acquiring executable code. On most desktop linux installs (and many server installs) that I've done, I've had to download a .deb or .rpm file or else install a 3rd party repo for some program that wasnt in the base repos. Thats really not much different than downloading an exe from a known trusted site-- I often download files off of nirsoft.net or sysinternals.com or the major vendor sites (firefox, adobe, google, microsoft), and I dont see it as much different than using a repository (in both situations you have to trust that the vendor's server has not been compromised).
Repos on windows ARE the biggest thing on my wishlist, all that said.
Windows has things like stack randomization and non executable pages, but so does linux and has done for much longer.
DEP was enabled in windows apparently about the same time as it was for Linux. I had thought that ASLR was introduced in Windows first and Linux later, but it seems Linux was first there-- though wikipedia notes it was a "weak form" (not really sure what is meant by that).
Its kind of irrelevant though, Im discussing the status NOW. I think this article puts it well--
"I think the question is far more complex right now actually. For example, what constitutes "Linux" or "Windows"? If we're talking only about the kernel, then they're about the same (both extremely secure). They've certainly made different design decisions, but at the end of the day kernel exploits for either OS are extremely rare."
Take group policy "folder restrictions" for instance, designed to prevent you browsing certain areas of the filesystem (eg the windows dir, or the root of the hd), and sure enough if you type c:\ into explorer you will get an error... But what if you open a subdir (eg browse the temporary internet files dir using the option within the ie settings), and then keep hitting the up option..
Microsoft freely admits that that particular GPO (and others like it) are not security options. If you want security for that, use the NTFS "list directory contents" and "traverse folder" ACL settings. I am not aware of analogues for Linux ext3/4, incidentally.
Linux doesnt have "features" like these because they are pointless, if you want to prevent users from accessing a given area you need to use file permissions.
I think there are some rare use cases for that particular GPO: perhaps you prefer to prevent users from seeing that a particular folder exists or what its contents are, but it is necessary that their account have permissions to access those files (for instance, you dont wish them to be able to see or delete temp files, though it is absolutely necessary that their account be able to read / write / execute data in that folder).. At any rate, NTFS has far more granular ACL controls than ext2/3/4, and can easily do what you talk about. And I wouldnt exactly boast about the lack of GPO support; GPOs are IMO one of the most powerful features of Windows. Being able to deploy a policy that says, for example, deny "execute" permission to any file not in C:\Windows and C:\Program Files, or else to publish a whitelist of executable hashes that are permitted to run, is pretty darn powerful.
Zimmerman's behavior may have been over the top (but at this point basically everyone is speculating on facts that havent been fully available yet), but right now all that seems clear from any news source ive seen is the following:
* Zimmerman for whatever reason decided that Trayvon was suspicious, and called 911.
* 911 told him either that it was not necessary to follow Trayvon, or else that he needed to desist from following Trayvon.
* ZImmerman did not.
* Subsequently, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. There has been no evidence that I am aware of that indicates that ZImmerman initiated any physical interaction; the police statement and witness story is that Trayvon fired the initial punch and proceeded to slam his head into the pavement
* At some point during all of this Zimmerman called for help.
* At some point during this Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.
Basically every story you find will agree that those are the alleged facts, and the police agree that these match the evidence, and witness statements of a person in distress followed by a gunshot.
You're free to take issue with Zimmerman following Martin, but that in no way gives license to a physical assault; and I dont think there are very many places that would find for a murder charge (as opposed to self defense) if the whole "slamming head against pavement" thing checks out. You're also free to cry "media and police conspiracy", except that the media seem to be trying as hard as possible to paint this as an innocent grade A student getting murdered by a white vigilante when, more and more, its coming out how far from the truth that is.
My understanding (seemingly validated by googling "guardian trifigura superinjunction") is that an injunction WAS obtained from a judge that legally restrained Guardian from publishing details about the Trifigura scandal, as well as from even mentioning that such injunction existed.
When a parliament member spoke about the issue as an attempt to bypass that injunction, Trifigura's legal team (Carter ruck) asserted that the existing injunction applied to said speech as well and that any attempt to report on what was said in parliament would be met with legal action under that injunction.
It is up in the air that they would have been successful, but the effect was in fact that Guardian felt unable to report on the case until Carter Ruck withdrew that threat and the news had already gotten out.
The concept of "chilling effect" does not require that censorship actually be enforced; threatened legal action in a system with heavy libel laws and such injunctions is enough to cause media to self censor.
And if your black you can apparently jump someone and slam their head into concrete and then receive the martyr treatment, so long as your shooter was (questionably) white.
Seriously, you want to play the race card in a self-defense shooting between a hispanic and an african american?
You're living in a country without freedom of speech right now.
Anyone who says this should be made to do a 4 week mandatory tour of the world, looking for this mecca of free speech that they seem to imagine exists. The US is among the top countries in the world regarding free speech, and countries with any sort of free speech are in the minority.
Go talk with the billions in India, Russia, and China about free speech and right to protest, and then contemplate that North America and Western Europe may have problems but are a far sight better than what about 70% of the world lives with. Bonus for those complaining about the 1% is when you realize that by living in these areas (NA, W. EU) you place yourselves among the top 5% economically in the world. You ARE the 5%.
Regarding the Occupy guys, what a joke. They illegally occupied private property for months waiting and hoping for a police response, and they finally got their wish after ignoring eviction orders. For all the flak Tea Partiers got, at least they got permits and permission for their demonstrations; why are the occupy folks exempt from such laws?
For the record, just because the national mall (or a park on Pennsylvania Ave) is "public property" doesnt mean you can break out a coleman tent, set up a bonfire, and declare it your residence indefinately. Public property means that everyone can have access to it, rather than you monopolizing it for your group for months on end.
The bottom line is, the UK takes racism more seriously than the US
The bottom line is the US takes free speech and the dangers of state censorship (or superinjunctions, or frivilous libel suits) more seriously than the UK, apparently. Im not aware of the US government being able to direct legislators on what they may not speak on, or preventing a news outlet from reporting on what is said in an open session of Congress.
Our culture is one of excessive indulgences and avoiding responsibility.
Ours was founded on avoiding recreating the type of government we fled from 200 years ago.
He shouldn't be kicked out of school at all.
I would say that depends on whether the school wants to be known as having a standard of integrity or not. If they do, kicking students out for such comments as a violation of school code doesnt seem unreasonable.
He did not make comments that would induce a dangerous panic. He did not offer dangerous or illegal medical advice. He did not make any statements of fact that could be construed as defamation or libel.
He simply made insults of a racial nature. That isnt illegal in the US. It isnt illegal to say "I hope X dies today because he is a [slur]" (although if you later get in an altercation with him it will probably be labeled, controversially, a hate crime), because in the US we have the notion that once someone can restrict speech which is unlikely to cause "imminent danger", its a very small step to outlawing speech that the current powers that be deem subversive-- for instance, libertarian speech during the current administration's term.
You can make various arguments about whether the Red Scare had some truth behind it and whether communism really was a threat, but you can see from that historical time what COULD happen if the winds blow in a different direction. Once you start outlawing speech that cannot cause immediate harm, why not outlaw Democratic opinion as subversive during Bush's term, and Republican speech as UnAmerican during a Democrat term?
Linux can be remarkably secure, but your standard desktop install probably lags behind Windows in security. Go and stack up the security features built into Mint or Fedora, and then compare with WIndows 7 x64, and it doesnt look as onesided as you might think.
Theyre saying part of the increase is the fact that building vertical allows capturing more sunlight in seasons and hours when the sun is closer to the horizon. Normally those hours are colder because less sunlight is making it to the ground, due to the low angle of incidence; this mitigates some of that problem.
Its the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect.
I think the idea is that they dont want you making assumptions about the evidence or facts of the case based on your evidence. For instance, your experience might tell you that it is very rare for such an automobile to have a suspension failure. But your expertise in that area hasnt been vetted by the court, and you might attempt to influence the other jurors with your informed guess in a way that would subvert the process.
Thats my thought, anyway.
Other than the fact that OpenVPN is SSL, sure.
DD-WRT router. Sometimes the webGUI breaks, and SSH may not be available due to problem, but telnet will let you in as an easy password recovery option. You know the username (ALWAYS root when telnetting to DD-WRT), which can make guessing the password easier. Additionally, its gonna be pretty hard to MITM a direct connection from your workstation to the router, and I dont think youd have much luck trying to trick the router into flooding the frame to all ports (is it possible to get the router to drop its own MAC from its ARP table?).
Of course I would only ever enable it on the LAN.
There may be other situations, like wanting access between routers on a network that is ACL'd-- I could probably come up with a plausible scenario where not all of the routers are capable of initiating SSH, and security controls do not allow direct connections to all devices. A secure alternative might be having ACLs that only allow SSH tunnels into one of the devices, and from there telnetting to whichever router you want. Only security risk would be if someone had physical access to the links between the routers, and as we all remember physical access is 8/10ths of security.
And what Im saying is that Im unaware of any engines comparable to this. Comparing a destructable environment game engine to one relying mostly on scripting just doesnt make sense.
did the soviets win? why not just start asking for blowjobs from applicants while at it? it's not prostitution because it's a phase of a job interview?
Part of the whole "soviets didnt win" thing is that a lot of states are right to work: You are free to leave your job at any time, and your (prospective) employer is free to show you the door at any time.
Part of freedom means that society doesnt owe you a darn thing.
I only had this problem on machines without any graphics acceleration, or a ridiculously small amount of memory.
I havent seen very many games like minecraft-- fully open-ended map with a fully destructable and constructable enviornment-- so Im not sure what game you are comparing it to. Keep in mind that with far vision, you are loading a huge number of blocks at the horizon, and the game needs to have terrain in memory beyond that unless you want massive drive thrashing when you move in that direction; and that it also needs to have in memory blocks beneath the surface for when you dig or cause an explosion.
You claim there are games that do better-- like what?
He starts games, makes promises, and then doesn't finish them
Im curious what promise he didnt keep. The only promise he made that I am aware of was adding a dragon, and unless I am mistaken there IS in fact a dragon in game.
The game also cost a whopping $10 and received oodles of updates for free, and has more content than many $60 games. What exactly are you complaining about? The fact that there are mods?
My understanding is that many MRIs are around 1 T.
For an example of how complicated it is, rare earth magnets are about 1 tesla too (just much smaller field)
I've heard it said that one of the truest marks of a sincere Christian is that he understands himself (personally) NOT to have the moral high ground.
There is much that could be said on the topic, but I'll leave it there.