Then it makes an even bigger jump by equating this with billionaires "ruling" our schools (as if individual donors to this fund created this one controversial policy, or even had any idea that it existed).
And then it attempts to act as if the financial status of someone has any relevance when evaluating the worth of a school, or their ability to run it.
If Bill Gates opened up a university that started churning out top-notch MBAs who by and large ended up successful entrepeneurs, who the heck cares that Gates himself is successful?
Class warfare indeed: Aparently where it was once the practice to discriminate on other inherent characteristics, we have moved beyond that kind of prejudice to one based on someone's income, all other factors be damned.
A more generally adult response wouldnt have equated a empty 2 lane country road with a busy highway, or claimed that the shots were uncontrollable (as the video doesnt actually reveal WHAT the hunters were shooting at, since the camera and everyone's attenion was fixed into the sky), or equated the whole incident with rape.
But then this is slashdot, and threads do tend to gravitate towards the gutter.
When you and parent say "destroying our precious robot" and "shot down", which part of the video would that be? Because the video in the article seems to indicate that nothing at all was shot down that day, and that its idle speculation by a guy saying "are they shootin at it" and getting the response "yea... bring it down" that they were even the target.
There might have been a story here, but it seems that its more that slashdot has no respect for its readers, or else that they dont actually check the article they post for any kind of remote truthiness.
The drone is also, notably, not actually shot, nor is it "shot down" by any definition of the term I've ever heard. When someone asks "are they shooting at it", and the response is "ok bring it down", one suspects that the "drone" wasnt actually disabled.
Why do we have to endure summaries that blatantly lie to us? Can editors mod submitters down? Can slashdotters be given that ability? Tagging "blatant lie" doesnt really do anything to stem the tide of nonsense.
On the flip side, what about "not being content with their contributions to the project and demanding they maintain features that get them no (and even negative) return"? Would that fit under "noble", or "OSS fanatics once again shooting themselves in the foot"?
Good gracious, between the complaining here, and on the "HJT Source released, but masses unsatisfied with level of OpenSourciness", I start to wonder why anyone bothers trying to release source as it only seems to inspire flames. Maybe Microsoft gets it right: They really dont get flamed as much for staying proprietary as Google, Apple, TrendMicro, et al have recently gotten for releasing source / contributing.
Yea, Cisco in particular-- their profit margins are razor thin already, and if their build cost doubled from $15 per Pentium 4-based router to $30 each, it would DESTROY them.
Xeon 5600 and (i think) 5500s are SB based. The new Xeon E3 and E5 models (for small servers) are also SB, and will likewise dominate the AMD offerings unless you really really need lots of cores.
The sad truth is that it's so very believable that the Heartland Institute would say such stupid anti science things. That's the reputation they have. It's so bad it doesn't matter much whether the documents are real or fake.
This is called honesty, and its nice to see you being candid, but its also an admission of gross bias and slashdot's own tendency to throw reason and rigor to the wind when its users have an axe to grind.
One would hope, when criticizing others' alleged disregard of reason, that its critics would not become hypocrites.
Because its goal is to scan said proprietary platform, using said proprietary platform's system files?
Im not seeing the problem here. It was written for windows, using Windows APIs, to scan the Windows registry, using a MS programming language.
Do you really have the nerve to ask them to rewrite the whole thing in Java or C++, and also would you please re-implement all the registry and NTFS APIs so that it can run from Linux? How bout everyone be greatful that we have some source, instead of being whiney OSS fanatics?
The point of the thread was whether it would compile under linux. It might, but it wouldnt do anything as it would be relying on functions that Linux does not supply.
I mean, im sure HJT runs fine under Wine, but Ill bet the scan comes up empty every time.
Except that if its not genuine but everyone is assuming that it is, they might have the very same reaction.
This thread has become a hotbed of the worst kind of question-begging. Can everyone try and put on their reasoning hats here before jumping in with more flames?
Second. HJT was replaced by the Sysinternals top 3 (Autoruns, ProcessExplorer, Process Monitor) about the time TrendMicro acquired it and stopped maintaining it.
It was useful for some things, but Autoruns very quickly surpassed it, and virus removal (what HJT was supposedly better at) wasnt really doable once advanced rootkits started appearing around that time and HJT took no countermeasures.
Autoruns is also a lot better laid out, and is constantly updated with new features.
Not an expert on this, but a program does not need to be 64-bit to access all parts of the registry, it just needs to be able to call another program that DOES have access to those parts. Theres no reason I couldnt write a 32-bit program which calls "reg query HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node" in order to get its results.
It doesnt matter terribly much. As anyone who does this type of thing might know, most (basically all) of these type of Windows-based programs which access the registry rely on kernel and system mechanisms to read/write the registry.
In other words, its great if you have it running under wine, but it wont actually do anything because Wine doesnt provide mechanisms for reading an actual NT registry. There are two programs I know of which re-implement those mechanisms under Linux: the NT Password reset / editor, and Raw Registry Editor-- either of which will allow Linux to open an NT registry.
And honestly it makes sense, since there is no reason to expect one to use HijackThis outside of Windows in 99% of the cases, and it would be rather like expecting The Gimp to implement ext4 read / write functions so that one can launch it under windows and access files on a Linux FS: it adds an enormous amount of complexity to the project with minimal gain.
Its a good read, and matches a lot of what Ive heard, but I would exercise caution about their Chernobyl "no cancer" anecdote-- Ive heard that before, but when I googled a few days ago I got conflicting results, some saying that there WAS an increase in cancer among locals.
Anyways, caution is good, but perspective in all things.
Thats not exactly how the radiation works, AFAIK. As I understand it, if you take X amount of radiation in a 5 minute period, it may end up giving you cancer or destroying your bone marrow; whereas the same dosage spread out over a 1 year span may have no appreciable impact on your body: your body already expects some DNA damage, and has mechanisms in place to deal with it.
It is not a sure thing, for instance, that the Fukushima workers who received "worrying" doses (close to enough to cause symptoms like nausea-- 200mSv) will have ANY long term damage or ANY increased risk of cancer, because it is entirely possible their bodies will simply repair the damage.
So if the dosage from the backscatter machines is, in fact, as low as is being claimed here:
Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[66] "A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said.......For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.
The majority of that section in wikipedia seems to be about how we have this grossly disproportionate response to these machines when the risks from flying are so much greater that the cancer aspect of the scanners is really insignificant. Its sort of akin to worrying about the risks of bluetooth radiation as you bike to work every day in a city: the bluetooth has many orders of magnitude less risk associated with it compared to biking to work in a city, but often people lose perspective when faced with something unfamiliar and hone in on it.
So once again, its not helpful to the conversation at ALL, and if you have any real privacy or big government concerns about the scanners, it would be much better to focus on them than on this red herring of an issue.
To be clear, I think the backscatter thing is ALSO probably way overblown, though there are actual potential issues with that as in theory you CAN get cancer from a large enough dose.
I feel like the cancer thing is a huge gigantic distraction; if studies come out showing that the dose they are using is, in fact, insignificant, there goes a huge part of the argument against the scanners when thats not even the main reason (AFAIK) that people oppose them.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
What the article WAS crystal clear on, however (and what you keep ignoring) is it is irrelevant whether or not the parent was charged in this instance. It was acknowledged in the article that it COULD happen if whoever the "inspector" is so decrees-- the child would be provided a lunch at the school's discretion, and the parent charged.
In other words, the school reserves the right to overrule the parenting decisions of a child's parents at their discretion.
I dont see why people are making a big deal about $1.25, when we have THAT big honking issue on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it makes an even bigger jump by equating this with billionaires "ruling" our schools (as if individual donors to this fund created this one controversial policy, or even had any idea that it existed).
And then it attempts to act as if the financial status of someone has any relevance when evaluating the worth of a school, or their ability to run it.
If Bill Gates opened up a university that started churning out top-notch MBAs who by and large ended up successful entrepeneurs, who the heck cares that Gates himself is successful?
Class warfare indeed: Aparently where it was once the practice to discriminate on other inherent characteristics, we have moved beyond that kind of prejudice to one based on someone's income, all other factors be damned.
A more generally adult response wouldnt have equated a empty 2 lane country road with a busy highway, or claimed that the shots were uncontrollable (as the video doesnt actually reveal WHAT the hunters were shooting at, since the camera and everyone's attenion was fixed into the sky), or equated the whole incident with rape.
But then this is slashdot, and threads do tend to gravitate towards the gutter.
When you and parent say "destroying our precious robot" and "shot down", which part of the video would that be? Because the video in the article seems to indicate that nothing at all was shot down that day, and that its idle speculation by a guy saying "are they shootin at it" and getting the response "yea... bring it down" that they were even the target.
There might have been a story here, but it seems that its more that slashdot has no respect for its readers, or else that they dont actually check the article they post for any kind of remote truthiness.
Well, as they never actually shot the thing (watch the video), discussing where they "should have shot it" seems a little absurd.
The drone is also, notably, not actually shot, nor is it "shot down" by any definition of the term I've ever heard. When someone asks "are they shooting at it", and the response is "ok bring it down", one suspects that the "drone" wasnt actually disabled.
Why do we have to endure summaries that blatantly lie to us? Can editors mod submitters down? Can slashdotters be given that ability? Tagging "blatant lie" doesnt really do anything to stem the tide of nonsense.
On the flip side, what about "not being content with their contributions to the project and demanding they maintain features that get them no (and even negative) return"? Would that fit under "noble", or "OSS fanatics once again shooting themselves in the foot"?
Good gracious, between the complaining here, and on the "HJT Source released, but masses unsatisfied with level of OpenSourciness", I start to wonder why anyone bothers trying to release source as it only seems to inspire flames. Maybe Microsoft gets it right: They really dont get flamed as much for staying proprietary as Google, Apple, TrendMicro, et al have recently gotten for releasing source / contributing.
Yea, Cisco in particular-- their profit margins are razor thin already, and if their build cost doubled from $15 per Pentium 4-based router to $30 each, it would DESTROY them.
Xeon 5600 and (i think) 5500s are SB based. The new Xeon E3 and E5 models (for small servers) are also SB, and will likewise dominate the AMD offerings unless you really really need lots of cores.
The sad truth is that it's so very believable that the Heartland Institute would say such stupid anti science things. That's the reputation they have. It's so bad it doesn't matter much whether the documents are real or fake.
This is called honesty, and its nice to see you being candid, but its also an admission of gross bias and slashdot's own tendency to throw reason and rigor to the wind when its users have an axe to grind.
One would hope, when criticizing others' alleged disregard of reason, that its critics would not become hypocrites.
Because its goal is to scan said proprietary platform, using said proprietary platform's system files?
Im not seeing the problem here. It was written for windows, using Windows APIs, to scan the Windows registry, using a MS programming language.
Do you really have the nerve to ask them to rewrite the whole thing in Java or C++, and also would you please re-implement all the registry and NTFS APIs so that it can run from Linux? How bout everyone be greatful that we have some source, instead of being whiney OSS fanatics?
The point of the thread was whether it would compile under linux. It might, but it wouldnt do anything as it would be relying on functions that Linux does not supply.
I mean, im sure HJT runs fine under Wine, but Ill bet the scan comes up empty every time.
Except that if its not genuine but everyone is assuming that it is, they might have the very same reaction.
This thread has become a hotbed of the worst kind of question-begging. Can everyone try and put on their reasoning hats here before jumping in with more flames?
Second. HJT was replaced by the Sysinternals top 3 (Autoruns, ProcessExplorer, Process Monitor) about the time TrendMicro acquired it and stopped maintaining it.
It was useful for some things, but Autoruns very quickly surpassed it, and virus removal (what HJT was supposedly better at) wasnt really doable once advanced rootkits started appearing around that time and HJT took no countermeasures.
Autoruns is also a lot better laid out, and is constantly updated with new features.
Not an expert on this, but a program does not need to be 64-bit to access all parts of the registry, it just needs to be able to call another program that DOES have access to those parts. Theres no reason I couldnt write a 32-bit program which calls "reg query HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node" in order to get its results.
Then you will have a hard time reading the Windows registry anyways, since HijackThis uses Windows APIs to do that.
It doesnt matter terribly much. As anyone who does this type of thing might know, most (basically all) of these type of Windows-based programs which access the registry rely on kernel and system mechanisms to read/write the registry.
In other words, its great if you have it running under wine, but it wont actually do anything because Wine doesnt provide mechanisms for reading an actual NT registry. There are two programs I know of which re-implement those mechanisms under Linux: the NT Password reset / editor, and Raw Registry Editor-- either of which will allow Linux to open an NT registry.
And honestly it makes sense, since there is no reason to expect one to use HijackThis outside of Windows in 99% of the cases, and it would be rather like expecting The Gimp to implement ext4 read / write functions so that one can launch it under windows and access files on a Linux FS: it adds an enormous amount of complexity to the project with minimal gain.
When was this? Every benchmark Ive seen shows that top of the line Intel's have utterly dominated top of the line AMDs since the Core2 came out.
Why dont you re-run those benchmarks with bulldozer vs Core i7 SB (or Ivy Bridge)?
Its a good read, and matches a lot of what Ive heard, but I would exercise caution about their Chernobyl "no cancer" anecdote-- Ive heard that before, but when I googled a few days ago I got conflicting results, some saying that there WAS an increase in cancer among locals.
Anyways, caution is good, but perspective in all things.
Man I miss trinitron tablets, they were so cool.
Last I checked, there ISNT an "antidote" to the flu.
Thats not exactly how the radiation works, AFAIK. As I understand it, if you take X amount of radiation in a 5 minute period, it may end up giving you cancer or destroying your bone marrow; whereas the same dosage spread out over a 1 year span may have no appreciable impact on your body: your body already expects some DNA damage, and has mechanisms in place to deal with it.
It is not a sure thing, for instance, that the Fukushima workers who received "worrying" doses (close to enough to cause symptoms like nausea-- 200mSv) will have ANY long term damage or ANY increased risk of cancer, because it is entirely possible their bodies will simply repair the damage.
So if the dosage from the backscatter machines is, in fact, as low as is being claimed here:
Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[66] ......For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.
"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said.
The majority of that section in wikipedia seems to be about how we have this grossly disproportionate response to these machines when the risks from flying are so much greater that the cancer aspect of the scanners is really insignificant. Its sort of akin to worrying about the risks of bluetooth radiation as you bike to work every day in a city: the bluetooth has many orders of magnitude less risk associated with it compared to biking to work in a city, but often people lose perspective when faced with something unfamiliar and hone in on it.
So once again, its not helpful to the conversation at ALL, and if you have any real privacy or big government concerns about the scanners, it would be much better to focus on them than on this red herring of an issue.
We already have that "problem": 5% sales tax in Va on a $9.99 item.... pretty sure we round the $0.1995 up to $0.20.
To be clear, I think the backscatter thing is ALSO probably way overblown, though there are actual potential issues with that as in theory you CAN get cancer from a large enough dose.
I feel like the cancer thing is a huge gigantic distraction; if studies come out showing that the dose they are using is, in fact, insignificant, there goes a huge part of the argument against the scanners when thats not even the main reason (AFAIK) that people oppose them.
If so that probably should have been mentioned in the article, and would change the tenor of the whole story.
One expects when RTFA'ing that it is semi accurate; that IS, supposedly, part of the reason we have a submission process.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
What the article WAS crystal clear on, however (and what you keep ignoring) is it is irrelevant whether or not the parent was charged in this instance. It was acknowledged in the article that it COULD happen if whoever the "inspector" is so decrees-- the child would be provided a lunch at the school's discretion, and the parent charged.
In other words, the school reserves the right to overrule the parenting decisions of a child's parents at their discretion.
I dont see why people are making a big deal about $1.25, when we have THAT big honking issue on the table.