If your users can do significant damage to their computers by clicking links, perhaps its your salary that should be docked. Maybe try, oh, I dont know...
Not running as admin
keeping your OS and browsers up to date
Locking down what browser plugins exist and can run
setting up a proxy to filter out "bad stuff" (exe, pdf, etc)
Seems to me that sort of thing falls on the sysadmin to worry about.
Did you check that competency quiz by sonicwall? People are expected to know the following to pass that test:
What HTTPS is, what HTTP is, and which is better
How any given company will format their emails-- will Yahoo address them by account number, or name? Or "member"?
How the DNS heirarchy works-- that Internal Revenue Service emails will come from a.gov, and what that means
What a legitimate domain name will look like (paypal.com isnt the same as paypal.com.somethingelse.net?)
How to check where a link points to without clicking it
May sound reasonable to a tech guy, but a lot of this isnt stuff that can easily be taught. Seems to me a lot of this is trying to ignore the fact that the existing DNS and SMTP systems are a mess and just blaming the user for being a retard.
Maybe its just me, but when people hire me as an IT consultant, I generally assume its because they want ME to take care of the technical details, not blame them for not being able to pass a Net+ exam. Perhaps that paycheck youre earning is so that YOU can handle the complexities of spam and viruses? Just a thought.
the reason they can't stand people not abiding by rules other then their own, is it poses the question that maybe their own way of life is "wrong", which for people with the belief that their dogma is the only way into heaven, is an untenable situation.
So you dont think its simply the basic human fault of trying to push your laws onto others? Nah, couldnt be that. Noone outside of organized religion does THAT....
Bringing up unpleasant things doesnt make context irrelevant, if you dont understand why context is important then I would wonder how you would be able to understand most news articles, or have an understanding of current events that isnt horribly biased.
The Roman Catholic Church would, as I understand it, claim that he is the spiritual successor of Peter and as such can from time to time give divine revelation (specifically when speaking Ex Cathedra he is understood to be infalliable-- which is rare as I understand it).
Protestants would of course deny that and remark that yes, he is human, and has no unique power of divine revelation. One might point to the backtracking on indulgences despite the former Pope's vehement defense of them in the Exsurge Domine as being catastrophic to their position...
I would simply like to point out that if you are judging their relevance on whether they are "effective" then youve missed the point. A church is relevant if its views are correct, and irrelevant otherwise.
Youre posting to a community that gets into pedantic debates over whether illegally downloading copyrighted content is "stealing" or not, just so they can feel justified in doing so. What did you expect?
There are always crazies out there, making the argument "oh but you dont know the things that are out there" doesnt really justify bending the law (didnt Aussie's Stephen Conroy make a similar claim about the internet?)
If you don't understand the equivalence, you might just be a religious extremist.
If you honestly believe this then youre somehow missing the entire argument and the fact that it IS an argument.
The ENTIRE POINT of the controversy of abortion isnt whether or not the woman has a right to choose, whatever some people will claim; it boils down to "is it a human or not". If a 21-week old fetus is human, than abortion is murder; I have never met anyone who will claim otherwise and frankly cannot see how you could. You are right that evangelicals tend to be "pro-life", but that in no way means its simply a religious belief.
Heres where your claim completely breaks down-- this isnt theoretical political satirization, but the termination of a sack of cells that might be human depending on your definition, and-- get this-- no application of the scientific method is going to get rid of the whole problem, because it isnt something youre going to determine through experimentation-- some will claim that "human" is defined by God, while others will say its opinion; and of course this doesnt help the situation.
Either way, with abortion we are discussing what is literally a question of "potential murder"-- though I realize it seems to be hyperbole, it is in essence where the disagreement lies. The cartoons are on the other hand NOT a life and death matter by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course some people choose to escalate it to such.
THERE is the problem with your statement. What is "THE christian lobby"? Theres just one? Am I in it? We all support censoring?
Maybe you could mention the specific group that supports this rather than using language which pigeonholes us just as parent was saying. A great number of christians do NOT support this, and you're using intentionally vague language to paint all Chrisians as part of some collective censorship movement. Is it possible that I can think something is wrong, but to also think the gov't getting involved in controlling it is worse, or that as my religion teaches its not my job to judge others?
So youre saying that "improving Windows is bad because it makes windows better"? Or that somehow Windows having a large market share will mean less competition? Have you been under a rock, do you not know about linux?
If Sony is acting in a way you dont approve of, (lets for arguments sake say theyre committing fraud), that does not mean your best option is to commit fraud right back at them.
In fact i think there is some old saying which applies here, something about 2 wrongs....
Try running most Windows XP software and see what happens.
Yes, I recommend that to all of my clients. Some software really wants access to program files, but thats fixed with cacls on the directory. Very few programs actually need admin, even quickbooks (whose tech support guys will insist it does). And for the programs that really really need it, theres always runas; you dont need your whole shell running with admin priveleges.
It is present in Adobe Reader, it has already been patched out of FoxIt and it never existed in XPDF.
If you will read the article on this from several days ago, you will see that there was a PDF released which runs calc on windows, xcalc on unix, and whatever macs have on OSX. It is VERY MUCH a spec issue, NOT a windows issue. To repeat, THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED ON LINUX.
A good house rule we use is you must be able to define and/or use the word in a sentence. If we then look the questionable word up, even if it is in the dictionary, it may be denied if your definition was way off.
I have no idea how anyone could be prevented from praying in school.
Well, were that to be the goal, very easily. Tommy starts praying, the teacher can tell him to stop disrupting / offending / insulting the other kids, and if he refuses send him to detention. Honestly, its not even that hard to imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that sort of thing falls on the sysadmin to worry about.
May sound reasonable to a tech guy, but a lot of this isnt stuff that can easily be taught. Seems to me a lot of this is trying to ignore the fact that the existing DNS and SMTP systems are a mess and just blaming the user for being a retard.
Maybe its just me, but when people hire me as an IT consultant, I generally assume its because they want ME to take care of the technical details, not blame them for not being able to pass a Net+ exam. Perhaps that paycheck youre earning is so that YOU can handle the complexities of spam and viruses? Just a thought.
Call in a consulting team, get a quote for reworking it. Doesnt that neatly solve the problem?
the reason they can't stand people not abiding by rules other then their own, is it poses the question that maybe their own way of life is "wrong", which for people with the belief that their dogma is the only way into heaven, is an untenable situation.
So you dont think its simply the basic human fault of trying to push your laws onto others? Nah, couldnt be that. Noone outside of organized religion does THAT....
Bringing up unpleasant things doesnt make context irrelevant, if you dont understand why context is important then I would wonder how you would be able to understand most news articles, or have an understanding of current events that isnt horribly biased.
And athiests like to make strawmen, so all of them must be illogical. Am I playing the game properly?
The Roman Catholic Church would, as I understand it, claim that he is the spiritual successor of Peter and as such can from time to time give divine revelation (specifically when speaking Ex Cathedra he is understood to be infalliable-- which is rare as I understand it).
Protestants would of course deny that and remark that yes, he is human, and has no unique power of divine revelation. One might point to the backtracking on indulgences despite the former Pope's vehement defense of them in the Exsurge Domine as being catastrophic to their position...
Oh well I sure am glad you cleared that up.
Guess christians everywhere should just close shop, huh? I mean, since youve ended that disagreement and all...
I would simply like to point out that if you are judging their relevance on whether they are "effective" then youve missed the point. A church is relevant if its views are correct, and irrelevant otherwise.
Youre posting to a community that gets into pedantic debates over whether illegally downloading copyrighted content is "stealing" or not, just so they can feel justified in doing so. What did you expect?
OTP can be circumvented by side-channel attacks, however.
There are always crazies out there, making the argument "oh but you dont know the things that are out there" doesnt really justify bending the law (didnt Aussie's Stephen Conroy make a similar claim about the internet?)
If you don't understand the equivalence, you might just be a religious extremist.
If you honestly believe this then youre somehow missing the entire argument and the fact that it IS an argument.
The ENTIRE POINT of the controversy of abortion isnt whether or not the woman has a right to choose, whatever some people will claim; it boils down to "is it a human or not". If a 21-week old fetus is human, than abortion is murder; I have never met anyone who will claim otherwise and frankly cannot see how you could. You are right that evangelicals tend to be "pro-life", but that in no way means its simply a religious belief.
Heres where your claim completely breaks down-- this isnt theoretical political satirization, but the termination of a sack of cells that might be human depending on your definition, and-- get this-- no application of the scientific method is going to get rid of the whole problem, because it isnt something youre going to determine through experimentation-- some will claim that "human" is defined by God, while others will say its opinion; and of course this doesnt help the situation.
Either way, with abortion we are discussing what is literally a question of "potential murder"-- though I realize it seems to be hyperbole, it is in essence where the disagreement lies. The cartoons are on the other hand NOT a life and death matter by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course some people choose to escalate it to such.
Depends what kind of switch you have, if the port is locked down...
Unfortunately, the press seems more likely to run with the pro-filter crowd
Wait, so what if we filter the pro-filter crowd.....
the Christian lobby
THERE is the problem with your statement. What is "THE christian lobby"? Theres just one? Am I in it? We all support censoring?
Maybe you could mention the specific group that supports this rather than using language which pigeonholes us just as parent was saying. A great number of christians do NOT support this, and you're using intentionally vague language to paint all Chrisians as part of some collective censorship movement. Is it possible that I can think something is wrong, but to also think the gov't getting involved in controlling it is worse, or that as my religion teaches its not my job to judge others?
I dont normally go to court before getting a refund for things I return to amazon...
So youre saying that "improving Windows is bad because it makes windows better"? Or that somehow Windows having a large market share will mean less competition? Have you been under a rock, do you not know about linux?
How long before they extend their dirty tactics to OS?
Yes, and then they will simply EXTINGUISH open source! And then happiness, and love!
How exactly can one "extinguish" a philosophy or idea, pray tell?
If Sony is acting in a way you dont approve of, (lets for arguments sake say theyre committing fraud), that does not mean your best option is to commit fraud right back at them.
In fact i think there is some old saying which applies here, something about 2 wrongs....
It also affects PDF X-change, tho with a prompt
You have to go out of your way to be root on Vista and 7, so Im not sure what your point is.
Try running most Windows XP software and see what happens.
Yes, I recommend that to all of my clients. Some software really wants access to program files, but thats fixed with cacls on the directory. Very few programs actually need admin, even quickbooks (whose tech support guys will insist it does). And for the programs that really really need it, theres always runas; you dont need your whole shell running with admin priveleges.
It is present in Adobe Reader, it has already been patched out of FoxIt and it never existed in XPDF.
If you will read the article on this from several days ago, you will see that there was a PDF released which runs calc on windows, xcalc on unix, and whatever macs have on OSX. It is VERY MUCH a spec issue, NOT a windows issue. To repeat, THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED ON LINUX.
A good house rule we use is you must be able to define and/or use the word in a sentence. If we then look the questionable word up, even if it is in the dictionary, it may be denied if your definition was way off.
I have no idea how anyone could be prevented from praying in school.
Well, were that to be the goal, very easily. Tommy starts praying, the teacher can tell him to stop disrupting / offending / insulting the other kids, and if he refuses send him to detention. Honestly, its not even that hard to imagine.