It looks, from this mini article (since noone seems willing to link to either the letter, or the law), like its more akin to the DMCA takedown provision. A content holder feels like their content is being illegally shared, they pass that on to a commission which determines if the case is actionable; if so, that is passed onto a judge.
Which, to my mind, sounds about right. Im not clear on why the commission is necessary, except perhaps to weed out unnecessary cases; but regardless it sounds like the courts do get involved.
Can someone explain to me how this is remotely similar to SOPA?
should be "refuse to perform a non-vital procedure". Clearly he does not have the right to run around grafting extra digits onto people for any reason;)
The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down.
Scary issue #1: you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
Have a cyst and hes the only one able to remove it, but you called him a jerk and he is refusing? Tough luck, hes not a public servant. Just like as an IT guy I could refuse to do work for a lobby firm dedicated to hate speech, he has the right to choose his customers.
Scary issue #2: There is no right to abortion. Neither is there some fundamental right to a state-sanctioned and state-benefitted marriage. Its great that we have it, but marriages have been going on for far longer than they got tax benefits.
The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby.
Its real interesting what you just did there. You made it the doctors fault that that woman got pregnant, unless he gives her an abortion. How does that work, exactly?
I really wasnt talking about anything other than requiring pastors / priests to perform a marriage. A local judge would probably go with whatever the law says, which is generally determined by what the people say, and is regardless not an infringement on his beliefs; unless I am mistaken he could recuse himself (right term?) if he had objections to the union.
Wait, youre refusing to agree with me. Thats a violation of my rights, correct?
I want to be clear what your position is here-- are you saying that it is discrimination for a priest / pastor to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony because it goes against his beliefs? Can you clarify whether you think it is permissible to compel him to perform the ceremony or else lose his position?
Seems to me that religious institutions get plenty of opt-outs form the law when it comes to discrimination against gays.
Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion, even if he thinks it is murder" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
And isnt Theravada Buddhism big in Cambodia, or perhaps I should say Democratic Kampuchea?
As always, attempts to link this religion or that to "people being bad" fail hard. People will murder, rape, pillage, etc other people as long as humans remain human.
A few points: Least privilege isnt a microsoft idea, its a pretty well known security principle. UAC enforces it the same as sudo / gksudo, and the Mac equivalent.
Privilege escalation bugs are commonly patched with Windows update. By not using UAC, when the inevitable flash / acrobat 0-day comes by and hits your computer with a virus, it doesnt matter whether your computer is fully patched or not; its MBR will get written with virus code and youll be rooted for good (unless you have the expertise to remove a dug-in rootkit, which is quite difficult).
The risk is pretty large when you look at the number of vulnerabilities in the common plugins out there.
As for firewalls, not sure if youre aware, but XP as of SP2 came with a firewall.
Increasingly ineffective. Big-brand viruses are generally recompiled once or twice a day, making the value of day or two-day old definitions much less. How do you think so many people get infections even while running an up to date [insert AV name]?
firewalls,
Stops targeted hacks, which arent really the threat one worries about on XP. XP has a built in firewall anyways.
NoScript
Probably does more to help you out than anything else, but allowing a flash video to run is enough to expose you.
and common sense are for.
Common sense is not helpful for stopping 80% (at least from my experience) of infections. Most come in through unpatched plugins.
Of course, those are about all you as a user can do, and they will help; but if you do get a virus, it will be quite nasty since on XP it will run with full administrative permissions. XP infections can be pretty nasty, with system files getting patched with malicious code (ive seen ndis.sys --the network driver-- patched, for example), the MBR altered, etc.
Windows Vista / 7's UAC tend to mitigate a lot of the damage, which has been a compelling reason to recommend it to clients.
I dont know your specific situation, but in general the Server OS and client OS are independent; you can have a Windows 2003 domain with all Win7 clients (I know of several of these), or a Windows 2008 domain with all XP clients. As long as the application runs on both the client and server OSes you want to work, it will be compatible.
and that so-called XP Compatibility mode isn't. And if those applications need to be supported then XP is what you use. Maybe you hide it in a VM that is running on a newer version of Windows
You do know that XP Compatibility mode is exactly that, a VM running XP, right? It will work for about 99% of programs that worked on XP, unless they need direct hardware access to a modem or something (and even then it might work).
So, 5 years ago I bought this PC, with a fairly tricked out MoBo and case (each about $200); total computer cost was around $800, with the latest greatest hardware (it has a Core2 duo E6300, from when they were brand new). Its still running beautifully today, on Win7 (purchased student upgrade for $30). Ive done a few graphics and drive upgrades, so in total Ive spent about $1000 on it. How much would a new Mac cost? And for that matter, what are the chances the processor would still be supported, if I had gone Mac back then?
Sorry, you can justify Mac usage on personal preference, but dont ever try to make the case that its for financial reasons, cause thats utter bullocks.
Windows 7 has UAC, which XP's RunAs doesnt really come close to. There are scores of programs that simply will not work in XP without full admin, or really heavy re-assigning of directory permissions (like "everyone, full" on Program Files)-- like Quickbooks, or Egnyte's programs.
Windows vista / 7 get around this with various kinds of directory virtualization (redirecting writes aimed @ program files to a per-user folder), which means you can actually strip users of their privileges without utterly crippling their ability to do work.
He said gaming. If its a business environment, and you dont have legacy apps, youre out of your mind running XP: it has very restricted use of least privilege, and the latest version of IE that it supports might be the slowest yet.
Bad PSUs dont fail THAT fast. Ive seen a few servers running "V520" brand (no, theyre not 520 watts) PSUs that lasted for several years. They eventually burned out, but given that they costed $20, Im not sure it was a net loss, economically.
OWA 2010 is almost visually identical to Outlook, and is the same regardless of browser.
OWA 2003 and 2007 were semi-OK in IE, and unusable in other browsers, but with OWA 2010 I have a chrome app shortcut to our server which I keep open always. Never screws up due to resumes / standbys, never errors out for wierd reasons, and has desktop notifications. Also a good deal quicker than Outlook desktop install for basic things.
I'll charitably assume that you are being honest here and that you don't actually know much about MS Exchange and that it's really a suite of applications anyway instead of being a single package. If you actually do know enough to install, run, configure and do backups in MS Exchange (ie. you are actually in a position to have an idea what you are writing about),
Youre playing semantics. Ive been doing Exchange installs and migrations for years, and I cant really argue that you could define "suite" such that Exchange fits the bill, but it really, truly is a single product package.
The fact that it integrates all together with a strong LDAP backend without needing to screw with PAM and hoping the version of PAM installed works with the version of your mail server and that somehow it will all play nicely with that open-LDAP server-- why is that a bad thing again?
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant, this isnt SOPA.
It looks, from this mini article (since noone seems willing to link to either the letter, or the law), like its more akin to the DMCA takedown provision. A content holder feels like their content is being illegally shared, they pass that on to a commission which determines if the case is actionable; if so, that is passed onto a judge.
Which, to my mind, sounds about right. Im not clear on why the commission is necessary, except perhaps to weed out unnecessary cases; but regardless it sounds like the courts do get involved.
Can someone explain to me how this is remotely similar to SOPA?
Sorry, mod down, misread parents comment.
Are you now claiming that we should impress unwilling doctors into service despite their desire to quit a profession they find amoral?
Thats one heck of an interesting moral compass you have there; remind me never to vote for you as dictator.
Doctors are public servants,
No, theyre no, at least not most of them; and its kind of scary that people think this is true.
should be "refuse to perform a non-vital procedure". Clearly he does not have the right to run around grafting extra digits onto people for any reason ;)
The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down.
Scary issue #1: you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
Have a cyst and hes the only one able to remove it, but you called him a jerk and he is refusing? Tough luck, hes not a public servant. Just like as an IT guy I could refuse to do work for a lobby firm dedicated to hate speech, he has the right to choose his customers.
Scary issue #2: There is no right to abortion. Neither is there some fundamental right to a state-sanctioned and state-benefitted marriage. Its great that we have it, but marriages have been going on for far longer than they got tax benefits.
The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby.
Its real interesting what you just did there. You made it the doctors fault that that woman got pregnant, unless he gives her an abortion. How does that work, exactly?
I really wasnt talking about anything other than requiring pastors / priests to perform a marriage. A local judge would probably go with whatever the law says, which is generally determined by what the people say, and is regardless not an infringement on his beliefs; unless I am mistaken he could recuse himself (right term?) if he had objections to the union.
Wait, youre refusing to agree with me. Thats a violation of my rights, correct?
I want to be clear what your position is here-- are you saying that it is discrimination for a priest / pastor to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony because it goes against his beliefs? Can you clarify whether you think it is permissible to compel him to perform the ceremony or else lose his position?
Seems to me that religious institutions get plenty of opt-outs form the law when it comes to discrimination against gays.
Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion, even if he thinks it is murder" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
You mean like China?
And isnt Theravada Buddhism big in Cambodia, or perhaps I should say Democratic Kampuchea?
As always, attempts to link this religion or that to "people being bad" fail hard. People will murder, rape, pillage, etc other people as long as humans remain human.
Otherwise, right now, Android is the only thing that's keeping Linux even alive,
Red Hat (and their customers) would like a word with you.
Where are you getting a $100, much less $5, violin? I would be very interested to hear this. Just what do you suppose the average violin costs?
A few points:
Least privilege isnt a microsoft idea, its a pretty well known security principle. UAC enforces it the same as sudo / gksudo, and the Mac equivalent.
Privilege escalation bugs are commonly patched with Windows update. By not using UAC, when the inevitable flash / acrobat 0-day comes by and hits your computer with a virus, it doesnt matter whether your computer is fully patched or not; its MBR will get written with virus code and youll be rooted for good (unless you have the expertise to remove a dug-in rootkit, which is quite difficult).
The risk is pretty large when you look at the number of vulnerabilities in the common plugins out there.
As for firewalls, not sure if youre aware, but XP as of SP2 came with a firewall.
That's what antivirus,
Increasingly ineffective. Big-brand viruses are generally recompiled once or twice a day, making the value of day or two-day old definitions much less. How do you think so many people get infections even while running an up to date [insert AV name]?
firewalls,
Stops targeted hacks, which arent really the threat one worries about on XP. XP has a built in firewall anyways.
NoScript
Probably does more to help you out than anything else, but allowing a flash video to run is enough to expose you.
and common sense are for.
Common sense is not helpful for stopping 80% (at least from my experience) of infections. Most come in through unpatched plugins.
Of course, those are about all you as a user can do, and they will help; but if you do get a virus, it will be quite nasty since on XP it will run with full administrative permissions. XP infections can be pretty nasty, with system files getting patched with malicious code (ive seen ndis.sys --the network driver-- patched, for example), the MBR altered, etc.
Windows Vista / 7's UAC tend to mitigate a lot of the damage, which has been a compelling reason to recommend it to clients.
I dont know your specific situation, but in general the Server OS and client OS are independent; you can have a Windows 2003 domain with all Win7 clients (I know of several of these), or a Windows 2008 domain with all XP clients. As long as the application runs on both the client and server OSes you want to work, it will be compatible.
Hope that helps, and saves you a lot of money.
and that so-called XP Compatibility mode isn't. And if those applications need to be supported then XP is what you use. Maybe you hide it in a VM that is running on a newer version of Windows
You do know that XP Compatibility mode is exactly that, a VM running XP, right? It will work for about 99% of programs that worked on XP, unless they need direct hardware access to a modem or something (and even then it might work).
Well, the driver support is pretty terrible for 64-bit XP.
As is the everything support. Its not really XP, its more like FrankenXp built off of Server2003 x64 and shoehorned into a home OS.
As I understand it, 64-bit in certain scenarios can be up to twice as fast as 32-bit.
So, 5 years ago I bought this PC, with a fairly tricked out MoBo and case (each about $200); total computer cost was around $800, with the latest greatest hardware (it has a Core2 duo E6300, from when they were brand new). Its still running beautifully today, on Win7 (purchased student upgrade for $30). Ive done a few graphics and drive upgrades, so in total Ive spent about $1000 on it. How much would a new Mac cost? And for that matter, what are the chances the processor would still be supported, if I had gone Mac back then?
Sorry, you can justify Mac usage on personal preference, but dont ever try to make the case that its for financial reasons, cause thats utter bullocks.
Windows 7 has UAC, which XP's RunAs doesnt really come close to. There are scores of programs that simply will not work in XP without full admin, or really heavy re-assigning of directory permissions (like "everyone, full" on Program Files)-- like Quickbooks, or Egnyte's programs.
Windows vista / 7 get around this with various kinds of directory virtualization (redirecting writes aimed @ program files to a per-user folder), which means you can actually strip users of their privileges without utterly crippling their ability to do work.
He said gaming. If its a business environment, and you dont have legacy apps, youre out of your mind running XP: it has very restricted use of least privilege, and the latest version of IE that it supports might be the slowest yet.
Bad PSUs dont fail THAT fast. Ive seen a few servers running "V520" brand (no, theyre not 520 watts) PSUs that lasted for several years. They eventually burned out, but given that they costed $20, Im not sure it was a net loss, economically.
XP home didnt support RDP either, did it?
Incidentally, XP Pro could handle 3 RDP sessions at once with a slight mod, which meant it could act like a mini-TS server.
Not sure what the legal ramifications are.
OWA 2010 is almost visually identical to Outlook, and is the same regardless of browser.
OWA 2003 and 2007 were semi-OK in IE, and unusable in other browsers, but with OWA 2010 I have a chrome app shortcut to our server which I keep open always. Never screws up due to resumes / standbys, never errors out for wierd reasons, and has desktop notifications. Also a good deal quicker than Outlook desktop install for basic things.
I'll charitably assume that you are being honest here and that you don't actually know much about MS Exchange and that it's really a suite of applications anyway instead of being a single package. If you actually do know enough to install, run, configure and do backups in MS Exchange (ie. you are actually in a position to have an idea what you are writing about),
Youre playing semantics. Ive been doing Exchange installs and migrations for years, and I cant really argue that you could define "suite" such that Exchange fits the bill, but it really, truly is a single product package.
The fact that it integrates all together with a strong LDAP backend without needing to screw with PAM and hoping the version of PAM installed works with the version of your mail server and that somehow it will all play nicely with that open-LDAP server-- why is that a bad thing again?