So, you don't bother to install packages from outside the distro repositories that include their own dependencies, and then complain when the system updates it's own dependencies. Yeah, that's a real "system" problem/failure.....
What I see here, and in many other places, is total condemnation of people of faith based on "not knowing". It's a "you're stupid to believe that and I'll prove you're irrational to believe that, and yes, evolution is true and God does not exist", when it's based on nothing more than "not knowing".
I call that pretty self-incriminating behavior because by your sides own definitions you're not supposed to accept anything as believable unless you can know you have enough evidence to back your position. And what are you doing? You're basing your condemnation and attitude of superiority on having 1% of the data. No rational person, by your definition of rational, would even begin to say they have enough evidence to make up their mind about anything on 1% of the data.
So, what's left? Faith is what's left to both sides. Like I said, condemning people of faith as irrational is an exercise in self-condemnation.
The difference is that I, the counterfeiter, am enriching myself at your expense. There is a reason counterfeiting is illegal. It robs people of the value of their money. Any time a person is deprived of what they have lawfully earned by illegal/immoral means it's theft in my book.
Oh, brother. You deny Australia has intelligence services and that they use fake passports from countries other than Australia to move around the world undetected and anonymously? You can't really be that naive.
You're bashing the Mossad because they used copies of passports belonging to Israelis who just happened to have dual citizenship. That's right. They didn't use an Irishman's passport that was a full-blooded Irishman. They used the passport of a Jew who held dual citizenship, in Israel and in Ireland. The same with passports from all the other countries that are complaining.
This is nothing more than anti-Semitic posturing on the parts of any nation that is complaining. They don't really care. They have agents using multiple 'personalities" all the time. Every nation on earth does it, and every intelligence service on earth uses forged passports from all kinds of different countries. You can't really be naive enough to believe only the "evil" Jews do this.
Well, in that case the governments of most the of the Arab countries should be in for the same treatment.
The Israelis aren't the ones that want to force everyone else out of the area or destroy the Arab race. It's the other way around. It's the leaders of Iran, Egypt, Syria, at one time Iraq, and most of the smaller Arab states, who have called for the total elimination of the Jews. They want to finish what Hitler started.
Ummmm.... I beg to differ. In modern times Great Britain, under the auspices of the League of Nations, set out to give the Jews a homeland. Those two entities decided where the State of Israel would be, not the Jews. That makes their state a legitimate state in the eyes of international law. It was also the home of the Jews for thousands of years. Saying that the Jews are "foreign" to Palestine and only Arabs have a right or any history is there is worse than disingenuous.
I love how you just ignored my questions. I knew it would happen because you have displayed no interest fairness. From what I've seen from you so far you're just another bigot. And, no I'm not a Jew, and have only known a few Jews personally. Some were good people, some weren't. Just like everyone else. I can also say the same thing for the few Arabs I've known. Some good, some bad.
I've also seen the massive discrimination practiced against the Jews, the irrational hatred and behavior that is directed at them. I say, more power to the Jews. They need to do what they need to do to survive. You and I would do the same if the positions of either of us and the Jews were reversed and we feared for the existence of not only our nations but our races.
You were once able to $1000 worth of goods with what was in your wallet. Now you are only able to buy $990 worth of goods in both instances, and in both instances the ability to purchase that other $10 worth of goods is now in my possession.
I’m not arguing with that.
In one case, something left my wallet. In the other case, it didn’t.
Ummmm... How do you figure that when you're now $10 short either way?
In one case, something left my wallet. In the other case, it didn’t.
Yes, it did, in both cases. You were once able to $1000 worth of goods with what was in your wallet. Now you are only able to buy $990 worth of goods in both instances, and in both instances the ability to purchase that other $10 worth of goods is now in my possession.
If what you have is now of less value I have stolen from you.
Let's say you have $1000 in your billfold and I steal a $10 bill from you. The value of the money in your wallet is now diminished. That is stealing. Now let's say I create counterfeit money that reduces the value of the $1000 you have to $990. What's the difference between the two, other than by my counterfeiting even the money you will earn in the future will be of diminished value?
Of course it makes a difference to online security whether or not you run FAT as your file system. Using FAT means a cracker can modify/execute any file on your system. They would not be limited to having only those file permissions that you, as a normal user, would have if the system used NTFS rather than FAT.
In effect, if you're running FAT you are giving anyone Administrator permissions to system files whether you are running as Administrator or not. If you think that is irrelevant to system security I'm at a loss to how get you to understand the issue. That's like saying there is no way Win2K or XP were/are more secure than Win95/98. The fact that you may log into your system as Administrator on Win2K or XP is irrelevant to the fact that FAT is less secure than NTFS. If it wasn't for the increased security in NTFS vs FAT having an Administrator account wouldn't have been necessary nor would it have mattered whether you run as Administrator or a limited account online as far as security goes.
I'll also disagree with you about what a user needs to know to be secure online. If most people don't understand WHY what they are doing is going to cause them problems and what can happen they are very unlikely to change their behavior. Just telling someone if you do A, B may happen isn't very convincing or motivating.
I'm very unlikely to change my behavior just because someone tells me to. I'm much more likely to change if someone can help me understand the causes and effects that my behavior is liable to create, whether the causes and effects are positive or negative. I don't believe I'm all that different from Joe Blow in that respect just because I understand technical issues better than he does. Even a child is much more likely to change his longterm behavior if you can get him to understand why doing some things differently will be to his advantage
Ummmm.... If I do something illegal that makes you poorer, and at the same time enrich myself due to my actions, I have most certainly stolen from you as I have illegally and immorally enriched myself at your expense, and without your permission.
That must have been before NT 4.0 because I never had a problem doing that very thing. But wait. Did NTFS even exist before NT 4.0? Ah. Wikipedia says it was introduced with NT 3.1, which I never used, and I only used NT 3.5x briefly.
In any event that problem was solved a long time ago.
Nope. The problem, when I ran across it, was in Win2K. Having used no version of Windows later than that I can't say if the "system partition" problem during conversion was ever fixed. Since all new Windows OSes use NTFS by default it's a moot issue with them.
Electric fences are high-voltage low-current circuits. As it's the current that kills you, not the voltage, when you're electrocuted, an electric fence is a low-risk proposition with respect to electrocution.
A third rail for an electric train is not a low-current application. It's both high-voltage and high-current as both are required to run electric motors, lights, etc....
As water alone can be sufficient to short out electrical circuits, and salt water even more likely to do the same, I would say I wouldn't even begin to want to experiment with pissing on a third rail to find out if it does, or doesn't, work. Also, I've worked with circuits in 440 or 600 volt range and an air gap of 1mm, not existing in a vacuum, will break down fairly easily, especially in dusty conditions.
Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
I'd just like to point out something about your post. You are assuming everyone starts with the same underlying assumptions that you do. Thus anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, according to your logic.
The point is that people with your beliefs often refuse to acknowledge much of what you believe to be true is taken on faith. You have faith that everything you believe about evolution is true. Why do I say faith? Because evolution and things such as the non-existence of God have never been conclusively proven.
Anything that has not been proven conclusively, such as 2 + 2 = 4, is believed to be true by starting with certain assumptions, and assuming/believing/having_faith_in those assumptions. I watched a Nova program on PBS a while back in which one of the scientists interviewed estimated that the current total sum of knowledge about the universe that scientists now know is estimated to be maybe 1% of what is possible to be known. I would posit that calling anyone irrational for openly accepting something by faith when your side dogmatically denies any existence of God on the basis of knowing about 1% of what can be known about the universe is basing that dogmatic belief in faith. Faith that further knowledge about the universe will not prove anything in the assumptions now believed about the universe in the scientific community to not be true. I'd say that's a huge leap of faith, as knowing 1% of any subject has never been a guarantee that the 1% is totally correct and does not include anything that will be proven false in the future. In fact, this has been proven true over, and over, and over again by the scentific community.
That makes calling anyone honest enough to openly state that they live by faith irrational an exercise in self-condemnation.
I can tell you from my experience during my noob days that changing a system drive from FAT to NTFS, in place and outside of a reinstall of the OS, is NOT a reliable thing to do. It can be a sure way to require a reformat and rebuild as afterwards your system can be one very buggy mess.
As C: drive is the only drive partition on most Windows computers it made moving from FAT to NTFS without reinstalling your OS a risky proposition that MS did NOT recommend. Unfortunately, they just left the checkmark out there without the warning about doing this to a system drive. If you didn't read the MS literature associated with that option you wouldn't know that MS said NOT to do this to a system drive.
I didn't say it doesn't matter if they don't know anything about how their system is set up. I said they didn't have to know if they are using FAT or NTFS. Tell me... let's say they have a FAT32 based installation for some strange reason. What difference to online security does that make? What practical difference does it make? Sure, if they want to CHANGE their system it might make a difference, but most people pay people to do that, not do it themselves. They don't have the time to learn how and they don't have the time to do it. That's why IT exists.
What difference does FAT vs NTFS have on security, online or otherwise? Are you seriously asking me that? If so, you are demonstrating exactly why the second half of your post defeated the first half of your post. FAT allows anyone to write to any file regardless of its location. IOW's there are NO file security/permission levels in FAT. If you can't see the security implications in that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I'll do you another favor and point out a major weakness with Windows implementation of NTFS with regards to security. The NTFS default in all Windows OSes is to automatically tie read and execute permissions together. You can't place a file on a Windows system with an NTFS formatted hard drive without it being given execute permissions. I'll let you figure out why that is a bad thing. I'll also tell you that none of file systems used in Linux does that.
What Childs did as far as passwords. having two people know them, having them stored in some outside place, etc... can be right or wrong in his situation. We don't know what city policy was for that. He was most likely not the one who wrote any related policy either. It seems to me that if city policy was what you're saying it should be then this fact would have been trumpeted from the rooftops by those trying to make him look as bad as possible, and nothing of the sort has even been alleged by the powers that be in SF. Soooo, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh towards Childs, especially in the light of the incompetence shown by his supervisors in the resulting investigation.
I don't think that pointing people to community resources is a bad thing. In the vast majority of cases, unless it's a very, very, odd forum/community if bad advice is given that advice will be promptly nullified.
I haven't used Windows in years so I'm very used to community support. I find it better than formal support because there is usually at least a couple of people on every help forum who have a real knack for explaining things to non-technical people. Also, getting more than one point of view, and more than one way of presenting information usually results in a better understanding of the problem for the noob/not_knowledgeable_user unless they have zero technical ability and then it doesn't really matter where you send them they aren't going to learn anything.
You are missing the point. Ignorance of all things computing is why most clueless users will follow any "click this" direction from anyone. It takes a knowledgeable user to recognize the issues.
If you're going to cite the Constitution as a proof for your assertions you need to get it right. No where does the Constitution say that ALL rights come from the Creator. It says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As you can plainly see it says "certain unalienable rights". That's a far cry from "all rights".
This is sort of offtopic, but this seems to me a logical place to say it.
I agree with you that people in a corporation have the right to do with as they please with their resources.... However, they have protections that the rest of us do not have. They cannot be held legally responsible for most of the actions their "business" takes. Only the most egregious of actions on their part, in the name of the corporation, are ever actionable and that's just not right. There is no good reason for them to have protections just because they work for a corporation that Joe Citizen does not have.
First you say it really doesn't matter if Windows users know anything about how their system is set up and how things work, but then go on to explain how their ignorance about how things work is their greatest weakness. You pretty much defeat defeat your own argument without realizing it.
As I said in answer to another post of yours, if what you're positing is such common knowledge, start pointing me to studies that show that poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem than afflent people do?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you don't bother to install packages from outside the distro repositories that include their own dependencies, and then complain when the system updates it's own dependencies. Yeah, that's a real "system" problem/failure.....
Just think how often you would be updating Windows if MS released a new OS every 6 months.
What I see here, and in many other places, is total condemnation of people of faith based on "not knowing". It's a "you're stupid to believe that and I'll prove you're irrational to believe that, and yes, evolution is true and God does not exist", when it's based on nothing more than "not knowing".
I call that pretty self-incriminating behavior because by your sides own definitions you're not supposed to accept anything as believable unless you can know you have enough evidence to back your position. And what are you doing? You're basing your condemnation and attitude of superiority on having 1% of the data. No rational person, by your definition of rational, would even begin to say they have enough evidence to make up their mind about anything on 1% of the data.
So, what's left? Faith is what's left to both sides. Like I said, condemning people of faith as irrational is an exercise in self-condemnation.
The difference is that I, the counterfeiter, am enriching myself at your expense. There is a reason counterfeiting is illegal. It robs people of the value of their money. Any time a person is deprived of what they have lawfully earned by illegal/immoral means it's theft in my book.
Oh, brother. You deny Australia has intelligence services and that they use fake passports from countries other than Australia to move around the world undetected and anonymously? You can't really be that naive.
You're bashing the Mossad because they used copies of passports belonging to Israelis who just happened to have dual citizenship. That's right. They didn't use an Irishman's passport that was a full-blooded Irishman. They used the passport of a Jew who held dual citizenship, in Israel and in Ireland. The same with passports from all the other countries that are complaining.
This is nothing more than anti-Semitic posturing on the parts of any nation that is complaining. They don't really care. They have agents using multiple 'personalities" all the time. Every nation on earth does it, and every intelligence service on earth uses forged passports from all kinds of different countries. You can't really be naive enough to believe only the "evil" Jews do this.
Well, in that case the governments of most the of the Arab countries should be in for the same treatment.
The Israelis aren't the ones that want to force everyone else out of the area or destroy the Arab race. It's the other way around. It's the leaders of Iran, Egypt, Syria, at one time Iraq, and most of the smaller Arab states, who have called for the total elimination of the Jews. They want to finish what Hitler started.
Ummmm.... I beg to differ. In modern times Great Britain, under the auspices of the League of Nations, set out to give the Jews a homeland. Those two entities decided where the State of Israel would be, not the Jews. That makes their state a legitimate state in the eyes of international law. It was also the home of the Jews for thousands of years. Saying that the Jews are "foreign" to Palestine and only Arabs have a right or any history is there is worse than disingenuous.
I love how you just ignored my questions. I knew it would happen because you have displayed no interest fairness. From what I've seen from you so far you're just another bigot. And, no I'm not a Jew, and have only known a few Jews personally. Some were good people, some weren't. Just like everyone else. I can also say the same thing for the few Arabs I've known. Some good, some bad.
I've also seen the massive discrimination practiced against the Jews, the irrational hatred and behavior that is directed at them. I say, more power to the Jews. They need to do what they need to do to survive. You and I would do the same if the positions of either of us and the Jews were reversed and we feared for the existence of not only our nations but our races.
You were once able to $1000 worth of goods with what was in your wallet. Now you are only able to buy $990 worth of goods in both instances, and in both instances the ability to purchase that other $10 worth of goods is now in my possession.
I’m not arguing with that.
In one case, something left my wallet. In the other case, it didn’t.
Ummmm... How do you figure that when you're now $10 short either way?
What's the difference between the two
In one case, something left my wallet. In the other case, it didn’t.
Yes, it did, in both cases. You were once able to $1000 worth of goods with what was in your wallet. Now you are only able to buy $990 worth of goods in both instances, and in both instances the ability to purchase that other $10 worth of goods is now in my possession.
If what you have is now of less value I have stolen from you.
Let's say you have $1000 in your billfold and I steal a $10 bill from you. The value of the money in your wallet is now diminished. That is stealing. Now let's say I create counterfeit money that reduces the value of the $1000 you have to $990. What's the difference between the two, other than by my counterfeiting even the money you will earn in the future will be of diminished value?
Of course it makes a difference to online security whether or not you run FAT as your file system. Using FAT means a cracker can modify/execute any file on your system. They would not be limited to having only those file permissions that you, as a normal user, would have if the system used NTFS rather than FAT.
In effect, if you're running FAT you are giving anyone Administrator permissions to system files whether you are running as Administrator or not. If you think that is irrelevant to system security I'm at a loss to how get you to understand the issue. That's like saying there is no way Win2K or XP were/are more secure than Win95/98. The fact that you may log into your system as Administrator on Win2K or XP is irrelevant to the fact that FAT is less secure than NTFS. If it wasn't for the increased security in NTFS vs FAT having an Administrator account wouldn't have been necessary nor would it have mattered whether you run as Administrator or a limited account online as far as security goes.
I'll also disagree with you about what a user needs to know to be secure online. If most people don't understand WHY what they are doing is going to cause them problems and what can happen they are very unlikely to change their behavior. Just telling someone if you do A, B may happen isn't very convincing or motivating.
I'm very unlikely to change my behavior just because someone tells me to. I'm much more likely to change if someone can help me understand the causes and effects that my behavior is liable to create, whether the causes and effects are positive or negative. I don't believe I'm all that different from Joe Blow in that respect just because I understand technical issues better than he does. Even a child is much more likely to change his longterm behavior if you can get him to understand why doing some things differently will be to his advantage
Ummmm.... If I do something illegal that makes you poorer, and at the same time enrich myself due to my actions, I have most certainly stolen from you as I have illegally and immorally enriched myself at your expense, and without your permission.
That must have been before NT 4.0 because I never had a problem doing that very thing. But wait. Did NTFS even exist before NT 4.0? Ah. Wikipedia says it was introduced with NT 3.1, which I never used, and I only used NT 3.5x briefly.
In any event that problem was solved a long time ago.
Nope. The problem, when I ran across it, was in Win2K. Having used no version of Windows later than that I can't say if the "system partition" problem during conversion was ever fixed. Since all new Windows OSes use NTFS by default it's a moot issue with them.
Electric fences are high-voltage low-current circuits. As it's the current that kills you, not the voltage, when you're electrocuted, an electric fence is a low-risk proposition with respect to electrocution.
A third rail for an electric train is not a low-current application. It's both high-voltage and high-current as both are required to run electric motors, lights, etc....
As water alone can be sufficient to short out electrical circuits, and salt water even more likely to do the same, I would say I wouldn't even begin to want to experiment with pissing on a third rail to find out if it does, or doesn't, work. Also, I've worked with circuits in 440 or 600 volt range and an air gap of 1mm, not existing in a vacuum, will break down fairly easily, especially in dusty conditions.
Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
I'd just like to point out something about your post. You are assuming everyone starts with the same underlying assumptions that you do. Thus anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, according to your logic.
The point is that people with your beliefs often refuse to acknowledge much of what you believe to be true is taken on faith. You have faith that everything you believe about evolution is true. Why do I say faith? Because evolution and things such as the non-existence of God have never been conclusively proven.
Anything that has not been proven conclusively, such as 2 + 2 = 4, is believed to be true by starting with certain assumptions, and assuming/believing/having_faith_in those assumptions. I watched a Nova program on PBS a while back in which one of the scientists interviewed estimated that the current total sum of knowledge about the universe that scientists now know is estimated to be maybe 1% of what is possible to be known. I would posit that calling anyone irrational for openly accepting something by faith when your side dogmatically denies any existence of God on the basis of knowing about 1% of what can be known about the universe is basing that dogmatic belief in faith. Faith that further knowledge about the universe will not prove anything in the assumptions now believed about the universe in the scientific community to not be true. I'd say that's a huge leap of faith, as knowing 1% of any subject has never been a guarantee that the 1% is totally correct and does not include anything that will be proven false in the future. In fact, this has been proven true over, and over, and over again by the scentific community.
That makes calling anyone honest enough to openly state that they live by faith irrational an exercise in self-condemnation.
I can tell you from my experience during my noob days that changing a system drive from FAT to NTFS, in place and outside of a reinstall of the OS, is NOT a reliable thing to do. It can be a sure way to require a reformat and rebuild as afterwards your system can be one very buggy mess.
As C: drive is the only drive partition on most Windows computers it made moving from FAT to NTFS without reinstalling your OS a risky proposition that MS did NOT recommend. Unfortunately, they just left the checkmark out there without the warning about doing this to a system drive. If you didn't read the MS literature associated with that option you wouldn't know that MS said NOT to do this to a system drive.
I didn't say it doesn't matter if they don't know anything about how their system is set up. I said they didn't have to know if they are using FAT or NTFS. Tell me... let's say they have a FAT32 based installation for some strange reason. What difference to online security does that make? What practical difference does it make? Sure, if they want to CHANGE their system it might make a difference, but most people pay people to do that, not do it themselves. They don't have the time to learn how and they don't have the time to do it. That's why IT exists.
What difference does FAT vs NTFS have on security, online or otherwise? Are you seriously asking me that? If so, you are demonstrating exactly why the second half of your post defeated the first half of your post. FAT allows anyone to write to any file regardless of its location. IOW's there are NO file security/permission levels in FAT. If you can't see the security implications in that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I'll do you another favor and point out a major weakness with Windows implementation of NTFS with regards to security. The NTFS default in all Windows OSes is to automatically tie read and execute permissions together. You can't place a file on a Windows system with an NTFS formatted hard drive without it being given execute permissions. I'll let you figure out why that is a bad thing. I'll also tell you that none of file systems used in Linux does that.
What Childs did as far as passwords. having two people know them, having them stored in some outside place, etc... can be right or wrong in his situation. We don't know what city policy was for that. He was most likely not the one who wrote any related policy either. It seems to me that if city policy was what you're saying it should be then this fact would have been trumpeted from the rooftops by those trying to make him look as bad as possible, and nothing of the sort has even been alleged by the powers that be in SF. Soooo, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh towards Childs, especially in the light of the incompetence shown by his supervisors in the resulting investigation.
I don't think that pointing people to community resources is a bad thing. In the vast majority of cases, unless it's a very, very, odd forum/community if bad advice is given that advice will be promptly nullified.
I haven't used Windows in years so I'm very used to community support. I find it better than formal support because there is usually at least a couple of people on every help forum who have a real knack for explaining things to non-technical people. Also, getting more than one point of view, and more than one way of presenting information usually results in a better understanding of the problem for the noob/not_knowledgeable_user unless they have zero technical ability and then it doesn't really matter where you send them they aren't going to learn anything.
You are missing the point. Ignorance of all things computing is why most clueless users will follow any "click this" direction from anyone. It takes a knowledgeable user to recognize the issues.
If you're going to cite the Constitution as a proof for your assertions you need to get it right. No where does the Constitution say that ALL rights come from the Creator. It says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As you can plainly see it says "certain unalienable rights". That's a far cry from "all rights".
This is sort of offtopic, but this seems to me a logical place to say it.
I agree with you that people in a corporation have the right to do with as they please with their resources.... However, they have protections that the rest of us do not have. They cannot be held legally responsible for most of the actions their "business" takes. Only the most egregious of actions on their part, in the name of the corporation, are ever actionable and that's just not right. There is no good reason for them to have protections just because they work for a corporation that Joe Citizen does not have.
First you say it really doesn't matter if Windows users know anything about how their system is set up and how things work, but then go on to explain how their ignorance about how things work is their greatest weakness. You pretty much defeat defeat your own argument without realizing it.
Outstanding, well-thought-out post. Wish I had mod points. I would mod this up.
As I said in answer to another post of yours, if what you're positing is such common knowledge, start pointing me to studies that show that poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem than afflent people do?