That's right. Humans abdicate responsibility and leave it to some of the most primitive organisms on the planet. I think we should scoop the stuff up and put it in every swimming pool in the Hamptons.
You know what else? Its high time we stopped relying on plants to recycle CO2 back into O2. We need to get some kind of catalytic converters in place, large scale, everywhere, to handle this vital task.
Sometimes the simplest solution really, actually, is the best solution.
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable,
Except that the first amendment is incorporated (applies to state legislatures), and explicitly forbids legislation that restricts free speech in this way.
A lot of those are already illegal; explicit violations of the first amendment through new legislation dont really fix any problems, they just create a zillion new ones.
Tell me, if its already illegal for a teacher to abuse their position of power to have an inappropriate relationship with their students, and if such laws dont always work, what makes THIS law so effective that it will put a stop to such relationships?
Thats really not relevant, either they are unwilling to respect the incorporated aspects of the Bill of Rights, or they are so ignorant of them that they are unable; either way they are not capable of the job.
This kind of reminds me of when DC tried to ban handguns, as if they thought it could somehow pass court muster.
Could you please clarify in what way it was a violation? Our country's military and its command is explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution, and I fail to see how a declaration of military intention exceeds that authority.
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
As the judge noted, it would explicitly prohibit parent teachers from facebooking with their own child if that child were their student.
There really isnt any way that it doesnt violate the first amendment, except that technically it isnt "Congress" enacting the law (thank goodness for incorporation!).
They wanted a setup where users could be members of groups such as Region1 and Region2, and each would have their OWN folder within their Region's share. Only that particular user would have access to their folder in that region, except for the manager who should be able to see everyones "personal" folder. Additionally, users must be able to have seperate folders in each region if they are members of more than one region.
My solution was to create a regional folder ("Region1", etc), and grant the manager modify rights, admins full rights, CreatorOwner modify rights (inheritable for subfolders), and members of that region only "traverse" and "create directory" rights, for "this folder only". On logon, a script attempts to create a %username% folder in the regional folder, which it is then the owner of and has full rights to. It them maps a drive to that folder.
They are unable to see who are members of their region, since they do not have the "list directory contents" right, and the manager gets a drive mapped to the root of the region, and is able to easily access all subordinate folders. No work is needed to switch users to a new region-- just change their group membership and the GPO takes over, as does the global "creator/owner" modify rights. They would be unable to access their old region's folder, as they would no longer have the traverse right.
A more simple use case is each user having their own private folder on the server; you set the permissions as stated above, and on logon the script tries to create their folder and maps it. New users automatically create a folder and map to it.
The worst thing that could happen would be a malicious user (eve) using mkdir to create someone else's (jsmith) folder prior to their initial logon; but of course, now Eve would be the owner, and jsmith's drive map would fail due to insufficient rights, and it would be immediately obvious what had happened.
I never was really able to use more than 2 desktops on Gnome/KDE; I ended up forgetting I had the apps open, and would reopen eg firefox, and it just ended up getting in the way. Possibly I just need a Compiz / Linux GUI Guru to set me up, but nothing has really fit quite as nice as the new startbar in 7.
THere is a reason that has a delay, it keeps the menus from being obnoxious and appearing/disappearing too fast.
As for the memory/cache options, those can be set thru the GUI, and there isnt really a one-size fits all; again, if there were, MS would have enabled that caching behavior by default.
Possibly you have your own PREFERENCES, but what ends up happening is that you assume your version of Computing Nirvana is what everyone's looks like, and you enable all sorts of custom behavior that others may not appreciate.
Not to rain on your parade, and Im sure you were a good tech.
But precious few registry fixes are performance upgrades; if they were, Microsoft would have had that switch on by default (since registry switches only do something when the kernel reads them and sets a known option).
After years and years of screwing with the registry, xtweaks, etc, ive determined that generally, unless you have a specific goal (like "broken driver" or "virus in startup list" or "fix Office 2010 incompatibility"), you shouldnt be messing with the registry (and this includes registry cleaners). The people who designed the registry generally know a far sight more about it than the folks writing articles on 101registryhax.com.
Honestly, (and if this gets me modded down, i have the karma to burn), I find the Win7 paradigm to be about the most functional and useable one. I miss the self-sorting menus (where software sticks itself in the right place), and I cant mod the heck out of it with Compiz, but out of the box it has VERY nice keyboard shortcuts, an uncluttered "active window" space, and the menu search is excellent.
Thats not to say im in love with Windows, but the new GUI (excepting their hiding of various control panel applets) is the reason I ditched XP on my desktop for 7.
I'm not saying that disabling autoplay will stop an active infection, but I'm saying that it WILL help prevent it from happening.
And my point was no, not always, sometimes users are browsing a network share, and click that exe-that-looks-like-a-folder, and it appears to open normally, except now theyre infected too.
While we're on the subject of security practices, look up NTFS/ADS
AD and NTFS are known for their remarkable security, actually; NTFS's ACLs are generally much much more granular than EXT3/4, or UFS, and I believe HFS+ (anything that uses basic chmod with 3-bit acls). You can sort of kludge on more advanced ACLs, but there nothing like the things you can do in NTFS, like allowing only "create directory" rights (which if you desired I could demonstrate a very easy use case for).
AD uses a lot of open standards, and Im really not aware of any good attacks on the authentication or encryption it uses.
What happens when that detection marks a TrueCrypt MBR (which stores the decryption key for the whole drive) as a virus, and kills it? "Whoops, I accidentally all your data"?
What happens when a virus update kills the BIOS due to a bad write?
Not being a Linux guru, I thought I had heard repeatedly "Chroots do NOT provide security"? Cant someone who pulls off a privelege escalation escape the chroot?
Not being a programmer, I would guess that it has something to do with Java running on a VM, and needing some way to interact in a universal manner with the host OS's FS.
You can usually spot "likely to be baseless" criticisms on slashdot, even if youre not up to date on the particular topic. Usually they are made by ACs.
I am satisfied to leave it there, but because you are so curious about these points
That said - at no point did you distance yourself from my biggest gripes with the republican party. You never suggested that you personally are not among those who republican's who are opposed to equal rights for gay people. You never suggested that you are in favor of cutting defense spending. In no way did you distance yourself from any of the issues I raise, therefore I MUST assume that when you vote for a party that champions them and do not distance yourself from them you ARE championing them yourself
I will give some degree of answer. I do not believe it is relevant to drag in what I believe when discussing what the republican party stands for; I had understood this to be about what republicans stand for. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts, though if you wanted to have a debate about my personal beliefs, IM or whatnot would be a heck of a lot easier than doing it on slashdot.
Cutting defense spending I do not have a broad, general policy on; I do not think I am sufficiently informed to give a point by point plan for how I think it should happen; but I am not opposed to it in principle. I do think that cutting spending in general is a good idea when we are spending beyond our means (rather than simply trying to pull more money in-- there is an issue of trust and accountability). At the same time, we are currently in 3 fighting scenarios ("kinetic military engagements", haha), and I would want to be careful that if we were to cut it it would be in the right way-- telling all the soldiers overseas to drop their weapons where they are and come back at once for example doesnt seem to be reasonable. As for raising taxes, my understanding is that the last time we had a big recession (reagan) and taxes were slashed, we had huge growth, which seems to validate the idea that cutting spending and cutting taxes grows the economy and reduces the debt.
As for homosexuality, my viewpoint as a Christian is that any intercourse outside of marriage is sin-- be it hetero- or homo- sexual. Further, even today homosexual couples are able to form civil unions. What they do NOT get are the full benefits of a married couple-- benefits that were put in place in order to incentivize traditional family structures which have been shown to be beneficial to society, and long believed to be the ethical norm.
So when someone argues for "equal rights for homosexuals", to be clear here im not out asking for their blood, but I see no reason why we would give marital incentives to those in an adulterous relationship, and likewise see no reason to give it to homosexual couples. And "inheritance rights" start to make less and less sense when the child is only related to one of the parents; though if there is in fact a law denying the child its rights to inheriting from its blood-parent, I do not think I would oppose changing that. And the paridigm of adoption once again breaks down when traditionally we have understood it to be "1 parent, or a man and his wife"; if it can be "two men", then why not allow for marriages with inheritance rights for "two men, a woman, and their parents"?
At some point you do have to draw a line; there will always be someone who feels left out, but if you disallow any distinctives or exclusivity, incentives and categories lose all meaning.
If you really wish to discuss what I believe and why I believe it, you can email me at slashdotincoming.20.ronin2040@spamgourmet.com.
Morality has proven to be fuzzy. Nobody agrees on morality nor can they show a reason for one thing to be more moral than another.
I could apply your reasoning to the disagreeing models of the universe (string theory and whatnot), but the fact that there are differences and disagreements doesnt mean that they are all wrong; this has been addressed, and the general response is that while there may be differences, you will never find a society that has esteemed cowards, or liars, or thieves, or murderers (though you do indeed find societies that esteem those who are good soldiers). The details are not what the point is, the fact that they all have commonalities that seem to transcend culture IS the point.
A concept of "fair" (which could very easily be argued is taught behaviour and not inherent)
Why that innate drive to justify ourselves? THAT certainly isnt taught.
A book I'm assuming was written well after all those events taking place?
You are begging the question. What if historical evidence indicated Habakkuk had been written prior to the invasions? Doubtless you would insist (because, of course, there just CANT be prophetic prediction) that it was a forgery. If I am correct (and I think if you are honest you will agree), then no evidence I ever provided in this case would ever be sufficient, because you are holding as inviolable your belief that Habakkuk could not have been prophetic, despite no rational basis for that.
Commonly scientists come across phenomena that they do not understand, and are willing to give up certain assumptions that have been proven wrong; I would argue that if you cannot do so, you are out of line in claiming others to be irrational.
The point they all fell down is exactly where I said. They get to a point they don't know the answer to and say "See God!".
Who is "They", and what points are you referring to?
Slashdot Mirror
You should tell the folks at the top of the comment tree who are super sure that anyone doubting the writer's guesses are shills and apologists.
That's right. Humans abdicate responsibility and leave it to some of the most primitive organisms on the planet. I think we should scoop the stuff up and put it in every swimming pool in the Hamptons.
You know what else? Its high time we stopped relying on plants to recycle CO2 back into O2. We need to get some kind of catalytic converters in place, large scale, everywhere, to handle this vital task.
Sometimes the simplest solution really, actually, is the best solution.
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable,
Except that the first amendment is incorporated (applies to state legislatures), and explicitly forbids legislation that restricts free speech in this way.
I guess either the judge should have read that slashdotter's post, or you should have read the judge's ruling. One of you is wrong.
A lot of those are already illegal; explicit violations of the first amendment through new legislation dont really fix any problems, they just create a zillion new ones.
Tell me, if its already illegal for a teacher to abuse their position of power to have an inappropriate relationship with their students, and if such laws dont always work, what makes THIS law so effective that it will put a stop to such relationships?
Thats really not relevant, either they are unwilling to respect the incorporated aspects of the Bill of Rights, or they are so ignorant of them that they are unable; either way they are not capable of the job.
This kind of reminds me of when DC tried to ban handguns, as if they thought it could somehow pass court muster.
Could you please clarify in what way it was a violation? Our country's military and its command is explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution, and I fail to see how a declaration of military intention exceeds that authority.
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
As the judge noted, it would explicitly prohibit parent teachers from facebooking with their own child if that child were their student.
There really isnt any way that it doesnt violate the first amendment, except that technically it isnt "Congress" enacting the law (thank goodness for incorporation!).
A client recently requested this.
They wanted a setup where users could be members of groups such as Region1 and Region2, and each would have their OWN folder within their Region's share. Only that particular user would have access to their folder in that region, except for the manager who should be able to see everyones "personal" folder. Additionally, users must be able to have seperate folders in each region if they are members of more than one region.
My solution was to create a regional folder ("Region1", etc), and grant the manager modify rights, admins full rights, CreatorOwner modify rights (inheritable for subfolders), and members of that region only "traverse" and "create directory" rights, for "this folder only". On logon, a script attempts to create a %username% folder in the regional folder, which it is then the owner of and has full rights to. It them maps a drive to that folder.
They are unable to see who are members of their region, since they do not have the "list directory contents" right, and the manager gets a drive mapped to the root of the region, and is able to easily access all subordinate folders. No work is needed to switch users to a new region-- just change their group membership and the GPO takes over, as does the global "creator/owner" modify rights. They would be unable to access their old region's folder, as they would no longer have the traverse right.
A more simple use case is each user having their own private folder on the server; you set the permissions as stated above, and on logon the script tries to create their folder and maps it. New users automatically create a folder and map to it.
The worst thing that could happen would be a malicious user (eve) using mkdir to create someone else's (jsmith) folder prior to their initial logon; but of course, now Eve would be the owner, and jsmith's drive map would fail due to insufficient rights, and it would be immediately obvious what had happened.
I never was really able to use more than 2 desktops on Gnome/KDE; I ended up forgetting I had the apps open, and would reopen eg firefox, and it just ended up getting in the way. Possibly I just need a Compiz / Linux GUI Guru to set me up, but nothing has really fit quite as nice as the new startbar in 7.
THere is a reason that has a delay, it keeps the menus from being obnoxious and appearing/disappearing too fast.
As for the memory/cache options, those can be set thru the GUI, and there isnt really a one-size fits all; again, if there were, MS would have enabled that caching behavior by default.
Possibly you have your own PREFERENCES, but what ends up happening is that you assume your version of Computing Nirvana is what everyone's looks like, and you enable all sorts of custom behavior that others may not appreciate.
Id rather have my backups on google docs alone than sitting in my house near my computers, alone.
Most good backups will require either a car, or an internet connection, to restore.
registry fixes....performance upgrades
Not to rain on your parade, and Im sure you were a good tech.
But precious few registry fixes are performance upgrades; if they were, Microsoft would have had that switch on by default (since registry switches only do something when the kernel reads them and sets a known option).
After years and years of screwing with the registry, xtweaks, etc, ive determined that generally, unless you have a specific goal (like "broken driver" or "virus in startup list" or "fix Office 2010 incompatibility"), you shouldnt be messing with the registry (and this includes registry cleaners). The people who designed the registry generally know a far sight more about it than the folks writing articles on 101registryhax.com.
I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth
I imagine people would pay to see that; I know I would.
Windows is, well, Windows
Honestly, (and if this gets me modded down, i have the karma to burn), I find the Win7 paradigm to be about the most functional and useable one. I miss the self-sorting menus (where software sticks itself in the right place), and I cant mod the heck out of it with Compiz, but out of the box it has VERY nice keyboard shortcuts, an uncluttered "active window" space, and the menu search is excellent.
Thats not to say im in love with Windows, but the new GUI (excepting their hiding of various control panel applets) is the reason I ditched XP on my desktop for 7.
Yes, well, everyone knows TEP is insecure and hackable. Im waiting until TPA2 comes out, thats where the real security is.
I'm not saying that disabling autoplay will stop an active infection, but I'm saying that it WILL help prevent it from happening.
And my point was no, not always, sometimes users are browsing a network share, and click that exe-that-looks-like-a-folder, and it appears to open normally, except now theyre infected too.
While we're on the subject of security practices, look up NTFS/ADS
AD and NTFS are known for their remarkable security, actually; NTFS's ACLs are generally much much more granular than EXT3/4, or UFS, and I believe HFS+ (anything that uses basic chmod with 3-bit acls). You can sort of kludge on more advanced ACLs, but there nothing like the things you can do in NTFS, like allowing only "create directory" rights (which if you desired I could demonstrate a very easy use case for).
AD uses a lot of open standards, and Im really not aware of any good attacks on the authentication or encryption it uses.
What happens when that detection marks a TrueCrypt MBR (which stores the decryption key for the whole drive) as a virus, and kills it? "Whoops, I accidentally all your data"?
What happens when a virus update kills the BIOS due to a bad write?
None of these justify the reaction that IIS would have gotten.
Cant comment on quicksort since its been years since I was in a CS class, but none of those google results indicate that quicksort sucks.
Usually you want your LMGTFY to show clear examples that make your case, and none of those links do.
using chroot/jails/containers/zones
Not being a Linux guru, I thought I had heard repeatedly "Chroots do NOT provide security"? Cant someone who pulls off a privelege escalation escape the chroot?
Not being a programmer, I would guess that it has something to do with Java running on a VM, and needing some way to interact in a universal manner with the host OS's FS.
Any Java whizzes want to comment?
You can usually spot "likely to be baseless" criticisms on slashdot, even if youre not up to date on the particular topic. Usually they are made by ACs.
I am satisfied to leave it there, but because you are so curious about these points
That said - at no point did you distance yourself from my biggest gripes with the republican party. You never suggested that you personally are not among those who republican's who are opposed to equal rights for gay people. You never suggested that you are in favor of cutting defense spending. In no way did you distance yourself from any of the issues I raise, therefore I MUST assume that when you vote for a party that champions them and do not distance yourself from them you ARE championing them yourself
I will give some degree of answer. I do not believe it is relevant to drag in what I believe when discussing what the republican party stands for; I had understood this to be about what republicans stand for. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts, though if you wanted to have a debate about my personal beliefs, IM or whatnot would be a heck of a lot easier than doing it on slashdot.
Cutting defense spending I do not have a broad, general policy on; I do not think I am sufficiently informed to give a point by point plan for how I think it should happen; but I am not opposed to it in principle. I do think that cutting spending in general is a good idea when we are spending beyond our means (rather than simply trying to pull more money in-- there is an issue of trust and accountability). At the same time, we are currently in 3 fighting scenarios ("kinetic military engagements", haha), and I would want to be careful that if we were to cut it it would be in the right way-- telling all the soldiers overseas to drop their weapons where they are and come back at once for example doesnt seem to be reasonable. As for raising taxes, my understanding is that the last time we had a big recession (reagan) and taxes were slashed, we had huge growth, which seems to validate the idea that cutting spending and cutting taxes grows the economy and reduces the debt.
As for homosexuality, my viewpoint as a Christian is that any intercourse outside of marriage is sin-- be it hetero- or homo- sexual. Further, even today homosexual couples are able to form civil unions. What they do NOT get are the full benefits of a married couple-- benefits that were put in place in order to incentivize traditional family structures which have been shown to be beneficial to society, and long believed to be the ethical norm.
So when someone argues for "equal rights for homosexuals", to be clear here im not out asking for their blood, but I see no reason why we would give marital incentives to those in an adulterous relationship, and likewise see no reason to give it to homosexual couples. And "inheritance rights" start to make less and less sense when the child is only related to one of the parents; though if there is in fact a law denying the child its rights to inheriting from its blood-parent, I do not think I would oppose changing that. And the paridigm of adoption once again breaks down when traditionally we have understood it to be "1 parent, or a man and his wife"; if it can be "two men", then why not allow for marriages with inheritance rights for "two men, a woman, and their parents"?
At some point you do have to draw a line; there will always be someone who feels left out, but if you disallow any distinctives or exclusivity, incentives and categories lose all meaning.
If you really wish to discuss what I believe and why I believe it, you can email me at slashdotincoming.20.ronin2040@spamgourmet.com.
Morality has proven to be fuzzy. Nobody agrees on morality nor can they show a reason for one thing to be more moral than another.
I could apply your reasoning to the disagreeing models of the universe (string theory and whatnot), but the fact that there are differences and disagreements doesnt mean that they are all wrong; this has been addressed, and the general response is that while there may be differences, you will never find a society that has esteemed cowards, or liars, or thieves, or murderers (though you do indeed find societies that esteem those who are good soldiers). The details are not what the point is, the fact that they all have commonalities that seem to transcend culture IS the point.
A concept of "fair" (which could very easily be argued is taught behaviour and not inherent)
Why that innate drive to justify ourselves? THAT certainly isnt taught.
A book I'm assuming was written well after all those events taking place?
You are begging the question. What if historical evidence indicated Habakkuk had been written prior to the invasions? Doubtless you would insist (because, of course, there just CANT be prophetic prediction) that it was a forgery. If I am correct (and I think if you are honest you will agree), then no evidence I ever provided in this case would ever be sufficient, because you are holding as inviolable your belief that Habakkuk could not have been prophetic, despite no rational basis for that.
Commonly scientists come across phenomena that they do not understand, and are willing to give up certain assumptions that have been proven wrong; I would argue that if you cannot do so, you are out of line in claiming others to be irrational.
The point they all fell down is exactly where I said. They get to a point they don't know the answer to and say "See God!".
Who is "They", and what points are you referring to?