Riddle me this: Those security appliances that would catch this, where are they manufactured? Where does their generic Intel (in many cases, sonicwall, cisco, etc) or ARM cpu come from?
For that matter, how sure are you that those little black-box security devices dont have PCI buses (last I checked, many did)?
IDS systems can be rooted too, you know; this threat doesnt go away just because you add ANOTHER potentially infected device to your network.
try to force them into a Unix centric CLI heavy environment?
There may indeed be arguments against Ubuntu / Linux, but as you have very clearly not used Ubuntu, I dont see why you feel necessary to speculate on what those faults may be.
You might as well complain about Windows, as server 2008 has moved heavily into PowerShell-- which is more of that "CLI heavy environment" that you so vigorously object to.
Windows 7..... without the user needing to run ANY CLI
You clearly havent used Windows in a serious corporate environment for any appreciable length of time, either. Microsoft has one of my USERS running a commandline debugger every time Word and Excel crash in order to gather data on why it is happening. And how do you suppose you go about refreshing group policies on a workstation-- pretty sure you have to run gpupdate on commandline.
Again, there are problems with Ubuntu and Linux in general, but commandline usage is probably just as prevalent between them, with the difference that the Linux commandline is actually pretty good (PowerShell isnt BAD tho....). People tend to use it more, because it is easier-- FAR easier to tell the user "click start, type charlie-mike-delta, press enter, type ipconfig, hit enter....whats the first line?" than trying to guide them through the brand-new and poorly laid out network connections GUI which is cleverly hidden away behind 13 clicks (and this is from experience guiding countless users through it over the phone).
Im not sure why this was modded informative, since you cant "un-md5" anything-- as a hash algorithm, it is a 1-way thing. Even brute-forcing wont necessarily reveal the original data-- unlike encryption which is a 1-to-1 mapping (plaintext X always maps to crypted Y, and vice versa), hashing is a many-to-1 mapping-- like lossy encrpyion, you lose some of the original data in the hashing.
The solution is to use SSL, which people already do (in theory) when connecting to signin pages. But that doesnt eliminate MITM attacks if users ignore the SSL warnings. At the end of the day, if the user is going to connect to unencrypted WiFi and ignore SSL warnings, there is very little that can be done.
Any chance it was a piece of your gear? Ive never heard of any provider-- T1, DSL, ISDN, cable, etc-- provide upload THAT low. Even bad DSL with a bad modem on a bad line will be at least 128kbit usually....
Is it possible you had some QoS mis-setting, or a bad modem, or a bad ethernet line? Did you test any of it (particularly the modem, since that would have changed after the ISP switch)? Comcast tends to be pretty darn good with respect to uploads...
Games are often times nearly unplayable without cracks and the like.
The gripe is understood, but any time you resort to hyperbole like this it damages your credibility. Somehow, millions of folks who dont peruse slashdot manage to play their broken games just fine.
Theres also the issue that many Vista and 7 installations have IPv6 turned off, because it can cause bizarre issues (ie, it tries to reach a domain controller via an IPv6 AAAA record, except the server doesnt have one. Whoops!).
Single player games that get achievements ARE using Blizzard's network. Its constantly online as you play unless you choose the "play offline" feature.
Hes connected to their servers while playing single player (at least if he is earning achievements). Blizzard DOES have some say in this so long as you are using one of their services.
Problem: While you play your single player game ONLINE (that is, connected to their servers), its not just a question of "my game". You agree to certain things while connected, and Blizzard has the right to hold you to that (to what extent is another question). Whether or not you think its blatant exhibitionism or not is irrelevant; other people rather like the achievement system (clearly those cheating to get the achievements do), and this breaks that feature for them if it cannot be trusted to be accurate.
If you want to tinker with the game, there IS a "play offline" feature, where achievements cannot be earned; I dont think Blizzard would have much to say about you cheating offline.
Which is great, because I hear that the detection and removal tools are quite modern on Linux-- certainly you dont intend to claim that Linux is actually immune to trojans?
For its flaws, the removal tools in XP are phenomenal, and with combofix, rootkits become a minor annoyance.
If this is personal use (as opposed to commercial / business), run Combofix (google it, they dont seem to like direct links)
If you have a capable AV (like avast), a boot-time scan is helpful
Additionally, if you know the specific virus, there are specific removal tools that are remarkably effective; I would nevertheless run the steps above to verify the computer is clean. If you see any evidence that your repairs are being undone, you may need to break out a live-boot linux disk, or hose the entire OS-- dont forget to nuke the MBR if you do a clean install, and to sanitize any connected USB drives.
If its a volunteer organization with only 5 computers, theres not much way to be out of compliance with Server 2008 cals, since the first 5 are generally bundled (depending where and how you buy it). When someone talks of a volunteer organization without the budget for a single $500 copy of Windows Server, youre usually not talking someone with scads of workstations.
You must be careful when making assumptions about this kind of thing. There is in fact a rhyme and reason to which laws we follow and those we do not. As I explained, it has to do with those parts that were part of the Mosaic Law, that law which was to demonstrate the extent of our lawlessness (read Galatians for an explaination), and the moral law which has been in effect and known in human hearts through all time.
They explicitly state that "man lying with man as with a woman is an abomination". You are doing verbal backflips, particularly given the clear plan of "man and woman cleaving together to form one flesh" in Genesis.
Furthermore, while Judaism claims that these verses are Mosaic, they clearly are a later invention.
I always find it astonishing that anyone defending christianity is expected to have a scholarly attention to detail and sourcing, but anyone attacking it is allowed to simply make unsourced statements, and assume them to be true (what is known as begging the question). WHY is it clear that they are a later invention? I have only one other time heard this claim, and it was, like in this case, completely uncited or defended-- it was just assumed.
there's the even more basic question why you think that humans even have any moral obligation to submit to God's authority
To sum it up, because of His character as demonstrated in the Bible (as opposed to the popular strawmen that are constructed). A more concise answer can be found by simply reading it.
I'm deeply concerned that you are comfortable with simply believing something just "is
I said there was no argument for it, that is, that its an objective truth that doesnt need a reason to be; this isnt something you can apply the scientific method to. If you wished to discuss it, youd have to put on either your philosophy or theology hat, not your science one.
Youre reading something in thats just not there. None of those facts are given in the story, and if you mean to imply that every centurion was homosexual, Im really not sure what to tell you other than that you're badly incorrect.
That may be the popular understanding, but it would be a poor christian that shopped churches until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear. I think the NT rather had something to say about people who found teachers to tell them "what their itching ears wanted to hear."
Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.
The point of a preacher is to preach, or teach, on a verse. The point of a teacher in school is to help you learn; you would not accuse a math teacher of teaching you what he, or his grandfather, believed about calculus, would you? At the same time, you are free to disagree with him if you have good cause to do so and can demonstrate your case suitibly.
In much the same way, yes, I intend to go in tomorrow and sit under the teaching of a man who has spent 20 odd years studying scripture, commentaries, and conferring with others of his profession; its sort of the point. That doesnt mean I dont read the passages on my own, and at various times simply disagree with the way he interprets the passage. I still have the freedom to use my brain and reading comprehension skills, you know.
means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.
I think Luther was well aware; the criticism leveled at him was that opening the scriptures to the masses would open a "floodgate of iniquity". His response was “If a floodgate of iniquity be opened, so be it.”
Additionally, a lot of the things (though not all) being called "not clear" are often enough things that are QUITE clear, and the readers simply do not want to accept them.
Every time I've seen someone try to show one of those places that its objectively wrong, they pull out one of the lame arguments that have been shown to be fallacious or factually incorrect time and time again, or that show a preschooler's understanding of metaphor and literary context.
If there is such a thing as "absolute morality"-- that is, that certain things are just "right", and others are just "wrong" aside from cultural mores and geopolitical context-- then there isnt an "argument" for it; it simply "is". Thats the whole point of an absolute, instead of a relative, morality.
Slashdot Mirror
They use CDW-G, not CDW. Same company, but differnet branches, which would make it easier to carry off the above attack.
Riddle me this: Those security appliances that would catch this, where are they manufactured? Where does their generic Intel (in many cases, sonicwall, cisco, etc) or ARM cpu come from?
For that matter, how sure are you that those little black-box security devices dont have PCI buses (last I checked, many did)?
IDS systems can be rooted too, you know; this threat doesnt go away just because you add ANOTHER potentially infected device to your network.
try to force them into a Unix centric CLI heavy environment?
There may indeed be arguments against Ubuntu / Linux, but as you have very clearly not used Ubuntu, I dont see why you feel necessary to speculate on what those faults may be.
You might as well complain about Windows, as server 2008 has moved heavily into PowerShell-- which is more of that "CLI heavy environment" that you so vigorously object to.
Windows 7..... without the user needing to run ANY CLI
You clearly havent used Windows in a serious corporate environment for any appreciable length of time, either. Microsoft has one of my USERS running a commandline debugger every time Word and Excel crash in order to gather data on why it is happening. And how do you suppose you go about refreshing group policies on a workstation-- pretty sure you have to run gpupdate on commandline.
Again, there are problems with Ubuntu and Linux in general, but commandline usage is probably just as prevalent between them, with the difference that the Linux commandline is actually pretty good (PowerShell isnt BAD tho....). People tend to use it more, because it is easier-- FAR easier to tell the user "click start, type charlie-mike-delta, press enter, type ipconfig, hit enter....whats the first line?" than trying to guide them through the brand-new and poorly laid out network connections GUI which is cleverly hidden away behind 13 clicks (and this is from experience guiding countless users through it over the phone).
Im not sure why this was modded informative, since you cant "un-md5" anything-- as a hash algorithm, it is a 1-way thing. Even brute-forcing wont necessarily reveal the original data-- unlike encryption which is a 1-to-1 mapping (plaintext X always maps to crypted Y, and vice versa), hashing is a many-to-1 mapping-- like lossy encrpyion, you lose some of the original data in the hashing.
The solution is to use SSL, which people already do (in theory) when connecting to signin pages. But that doesnt eliminate MITM attacks if users ignore the SSL warnings. At the end of the day, if the user is going to connect to unencrypted WiFi and ignore SSL warnings, there is very little that can be done.
Any chance it was a piece of your gear? Ive never heard of any provider-- T1, DSL, ISDN, cable, etc-- provide upload THAT low. Even bad DSL with a bad modem on a bad line will be at least 128kbit usually....
Is it possible you had some QoS mis-setting, or a bad modem, or a bad ethernet line? Did you test any of it (particularly the modem, since that would have changed after the ISP switch)? Comcast tends to be pretty darn good with respect to uploads...
[citation needed] Or are you referring to just the US?
Games are often times nearly unplayable without cracks and the like.
The gripe is understood, but any time you resort to hyperbole like this it damages your credibility. Somehow, millions of folks who dont peruse slashdot manage to play their broken games just fine.
Theres also the issue that many Vista and 7 installations have IPv6 turned off, because it can cause bizarre issues (ie, it tries to reach a domain controller via an IPv6 AAAA record, except the server doesnt have one. Whoops!).
Single player games that get achievements ARE using Blizzard's network. Its constantly online as you play unless you choose the "play offline" feature.
I do not think "being able to buy video games on whatever terms I demand" qualifies as a "basic human right". Lets cut the hyperbole.
Hes connected to their servers while playing single player (at least if he is earning achievements). Blizzard DOES have some say in this so long as you are using one of their services.
Problem: While you play your single player game ONLINE (that is, connected to their servers), its not just a question of "my game". You agree to certain things while connected, and Blizzard has the right to hold you to that (to what extent is another question). Whether or not you think its blatant exhibitionism or not is irrelevant; other people rather like the achievement system (clearly those cheating to get the achievements do), and this breaks that feature for them if it cannot be trusted to be accurate.
If you want to tinker with the game, there IS a "play offline" feature, where achievements cannot be earned; I dont think Blizzard would have much to say about you cheating offline.
I dont think bone melts, or if it does, I dont see why focused photons would do a better job of vaporizing you than ultra hot ionized gases would.
Yes. Its in the control panel applet.
Which is great, because I hear that the detection and removal tools are quite modern on Linux-- certainly you dont intend to claim that Linux is actually immune to trojans?
For its flaws, the removal tools in XP are phenomenal, and with combofix, rootkits become a minor annoyance.
Additionally, if you know the specific virus, there are specific removal tools that are remarkably effective; I would nevertheless run the steps above to verify the computer is clean. If you see any evidence that your repairs are being undone, you may need to break out a live-boot linux disk, or hose the entire OS-- dont forget to nuke the MBR if you do a clean install, and to sanitize any connected USB drives.
If its a volunteer organization with only 5 computers, theres not much way to be out of compliance with Server 2008 cals, since the first 5 are generally bundled (depending where and how you buy it). When someone talks of a volunteer organization without the budget for a single $500 copy of Windows Server, youre usually not talking someone with scads of workstations.
You must be careful when making assumptions about this kind of thing. There is in fact a rhyme and reason to which laws we follow and those we do not. As I explained, it has to do with those parts that were part of the Mosaic Law, that law which was to demonstrate the extent of our lawlessness (read Galatians for an explaination), and the moral law which has been in effect and known in human hearts through all time.
Furthermore, while Judaism claims that these verses are Mosaic, they clearly are a later invention.
I always find it astonishing that anyone defending christianity is expected to have a scholarly attention to detail and sourcing, but anyone attacking it is allowed to simply make unsourced statements, and assume them to be true (what is known as begging the question). WHY is it clear that they are a later invention? I have only one other time heard this claim, and it was, like in this case, completely uncited or defended-- it was just assumed.
there's the even more basic question why you think that humans even have any moral obligation to submit to God's authority
To sum it up, because of His character as demonstrated in the Bible (as opposed to the popular strawmen that are constructed). A more concise answer can be found by simply reading it.
I'm deeply concerned that you are comfortable with simply believing something just "is
I said there was no argument for it, that is, that its an objective truth that doesnt need a reason to be; this isnt something you can apply the scientific method to. If you wished to discuss it, youd have to put on either your philosophy or theology hat, not your science one.
Youre reading something in thats just not there. None of those facts are given in the story, and if you mean to imply that every centurion was homosexual, Im really not sure what to tell you other than that you're badly incorrect.
That may be the popular understanding, but it would be a poor christian that shopped churches until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear. I think the NT rather had something to say about people who found teachers to tell them "what their itching ears wanted to hear."
Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.
The point of a preacher is to preach, or teach, on a verse. The point of a teacher in school is to help you learn; you would not accuse a math teacher of teaching you what he, or his grandfather, believed about calculus, would you? At the same time, you are free to disagree with him if you have good cause to do so and can demonstrate your case suitibly.
In much the same way, yes, I intend to go in tomorrow and sit under the teaching of a man who has spent 20 odd years studying scripture, commentaries, and conferring with others of his profession; its sort of the point. That doesnt mean I dont read the passages on my own, and at various times simply disagree with the way he interprets the passage. I still have the freedom to use my brain and reading comprehension skills, you know.
means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.
I think Luther was well aware; the criticism leveled at him was that opening the scriptures to the masses would open a "floodgate of iniquity". His response was “If a floodgate of iniquity be opened, so be it.”
Additionally, a lot of the things (though not all) being called "not clear" are often enough things that are QUITE clear, and the readers simply do not want to accept them.
Every time I've seen someone try to show one of those places that its objectively wrong, they pull out one of the lame arguments that have been shown to be fallacious or factually incorrect time and time again, or that show a preschooler's understanding of metaphor and literary context.
Please, do trot one out, nevertheless.
If there is such a thing as "absolute morality"-- that is, that certain things are just "right", and others are just "wrong" aside from cultural mores and geopolitical context-- then there isnt an "argument" for it; it simply "is". Thats the whole point of an absolute, instead of a relative, morality.