There's nothing wrong with a Bible study club. The problem is when the school itself has the appearance of spreading a religion. This is when the Bible study members go around proselytizing or when the group mentor starts recruiting from his classes and other classes.
The Bible study groups have to be careful because religious action on the part of the government is illegal, for good reason.
Since you insist on attacking this brave poster as a proxy for his religion, I can't offer an argument in kind. If that were what he were doing, you could offer an argument. In fact, that is exactly what you did. Unfortunately for you, he wasn't attacking "this brave poster," rather the notion that religions (cause and/or rationale of most of the most depraved acts committed by humans) should be some sort of governmental guidance.
Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive. To be eaten by honesty or to enjoy the slow death by religion. You tell me.
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack. Really. Can you read?
It was a lie and an embarrassment to the concept of freedom which you chose to abuse on that day. Shame on you.
He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking. I can recommend a few good reading classes for you.
As a Christian in this nation I say enough is enough..... I do, however, want to see americans start standing up for a little decency and the like.
And about the "Ten Commandments" comment in the first part of your story - give me a break. Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like.
Ah yes. One can't have teacher led prayer during CLASS TIME and somehow this is a bad thing. Right. Bullshit.
He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation! And to Hell with those heathens. Get your head out of your ass and quit agreeing blindly to a religion your forefathers desperately wanted to keep out of the government.
BO2K has functions they can pretty much only be used maliciously with are not contained in SMS. Examples, piping microphone input to a BO client, logging keystrokes, scanning for BO servers, etc. I don't know EVERYTHING SMS can do because, well, I try to avoid most Microsoft contact, but some of it is unavoidable in my job. SMS can scan (actually, just running the client gives the server lots of information). I'm not sure its logging functions but it also ties into network monitor (if it's installed). However, the keystroke logging is actually the most administratively beneficial component of BO2K. Being able to see just what the inputs were that caused the system to crash.... Think about it. It's also a feature enabled in some other remote admin tools. Furthermore, the microphone piping does require a mic attached to the system, yes? Also, BO hides itself by making it's executables and registry entries look like system files/keys, which makes it a pain should you decide it's time to uninstall. Look at Office 2000. The links it creates in your start menu aren't real shortcuts, they're like the control panel. I didn't discover this until I tried running EVWM which pulled the real name from the link rather than the short name.
Most legit remote managment tools can be removed with a minimal effort. Um... Sure. Right.:)
I'm not trying to defend MS here, but if cDc claims that BO2K is anything but a hacker tool, they're only kidding themselves. Just like Microsoft is kidding themselves saying SMS isn't a cracking tool.
I want to see Gates eat a big steaming turd as much as the next guy, but I think cDc is going about it entirely the wrong way, and I think they're doomed to failure. Right. Sure you want Gates to "eat a big steaming turd." We believe you.
According to our backup server (and the number of tapes we go through), since version 6.5, Backup Exec has backed up with incremental backups. I have no experience with prior versions, so I can't comment on them.
If you can't get it to work, that's not Backup Exec's fault.
Linux has thosands of average hackers working in there spare time Microsoft has hundreds of really good coders working full time I think that the two are pretty evenly matched, at least in terms of what they *can* produce. Why do you assume that Linux doesn't have hundreds of really good coders working (at least effectively) for pay? Strictly in the kernel (and off the top o'my head): Alan Cox, Steven Tweedie, Dave Miller, the guys VAR pays to port to Merced, (I think) Ingo (God of the P3), and I know a few others. Going farther out, Apache is paid for by IBM now, Jeremy Allison is on SGI's payroll to do JUST Samba (and they've admitted to paying other people to work on Linux, both the kernel and apps).
Furthermore, who said that the above people are worse than Microsoft's guys?
It's been known to break some NIC drivers causing a blue screen. We had a pair of systems with this issue (2 HP LCIII systems with 1 each 3Com 905B and Intel EEPro cards where the 3Com driver would cause the bluescreen).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Incoming correction.
The IDE standard allows for only two IDE controllers in one system. Newer motherboards have both of the allowed controllers built in (hence the four IDE devices). If you plug in another PCI controller it will not work because of the two controllers already opperating in the system. BIOS can only deal with (currently) two controllers. However, the IDE spec allows at least 4 controllers to be present. Whether this conflicts with anything else in the system is another matter.
Everything I have read on RAID (I'm not an expert but I have read a lot), has said it will not work on IDE systems. Here are the two reasons I can think of; 1) RAID trys to write accross at least 3 drives at once. Exactly what it writes to each drive depends on which type of RAID (0, 5...). s/3/2/ RAID 0 and 1 require only two drives. RAID 4 and 5 require at least 3 and RAID 5 performs better with more drives.
This is no problem for SCSI drives on the same cable, because each drive operates seperatly. On IDE the drives work in the master/slave fashion and the slave is truly dependant on the master and must wait for the master to respond. Because of the master/slave issue, each drive would need to be on another cable. Which brings up problem... There is no reason in software RAID that each drive needs to be on its own cable. You may not get as good of speed, but it is possible to run software RAID 0 or 1 on a single controller system while you need 2 controllers for RAID 4, 5, or "10" (RAID 0/1 combined).
If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, because I wouldn't mind running RAID on IDE's too. It can be done, but it's not recommended.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with a Bible study club. The problem is when the school itself has the appearance of spreading a religion. This is when the Bible study members go around proselytizing or when the group mentor starts recruiting from his classes and other classes.
The Bible study groups have to be careful because religious action on the part of the government is illegal, for good reason.
Since you insist on attacking this brave poster as a proxy for his religion, I can't offer an argument in kind.
If that were what he were doing, you could offer an argument. In fact, that is exactly what you did. Unfortunately for you, he wasn't attacking "this brave poster," rather the notion that religions (cause and/or rationale of most of the most depraved acts committed by humans) should be some sort of governmental guidance.
Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive.
To be eaten by honesty or to enjoy the slow death by religion. You tell me.
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack.
Really. Can you read?
He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking.
Ah yes. One can't have teacher led prayer during CLASS TIME and somehow this is a bad thing. Right. Bullshit.I can recommend a few good reading classes for you.
He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
And to Hell with those heathens. Get your head out of your ass and quit agreeing blindly to a religion your forefathers desperately wanted to keep out of the government.
There's a timeout that goes along with a DHCP packet. The machine can reboot all it wants to, so long as that timeout hasn't expired.
But "the Internet" is the current big scare.
SMS can scan (actually, just running the client gives the server lots of information). I'm not sure its logging functions but it also ties into network monitor (if it's installed). However, the keystroke logging is actually the most administratively beneficial component of BO2K. Being able to see just what the inputs were that caused the system to crash.... Think about it. It's also a feature enabled in some other remote admin tools. Furthermore, the microphone piping does require a mic attached to the system, yes? Also, BO hides itself by making it's executables and registry entries look like system files/keys, which makes it a pain should you decide it's time to uninstall.
Look at Office 2000. The links it creates in your start menu aren't real shortcuts, they're like the control panel. I didn't discover this until I tried running EVWM which pulled the real name from the link rather than the short name.
Most legit remote managment tools can be removed with a minimal effort. :)
Um... Sure. Right.
I'm not trying to defend MS here, but if cDc claims that BO2K is anything but a hacker tool, they're only kidding themselves.
Just like Microsoft is kidding themselves saying SMS isn't a cracking tool.
I want to see Gates eat a big steaming turd as much as the next guy, but I think cDc is going about it entirely the wrong way, and I think they're doomed to failure.
Right. Sure you want Gates to "eat a big steaming turd." We believe you.
The real post is down below with appropriate links. Feel free to moderate this one down or even delete it.
GIF of how to turn off visibility. Notice how both permission required and visible signal are unchecked.
All the warning you get. WUSER32 is the process (it's not visible under the Applications pane) that runs SMS.
I don't know what SMS 2.0 behaves like as we aren't using it here yet.
It's the pro-freedom crowd vs. the ego stroking crowd, by the way.
(erm, OK)
Or... would that mean your precious world view that BSD is all mighty and perfect would be flawed?
Second, you usually don't want to run your server peaked. ftp.cdrom.com is not peaked even when its putting out 1TB a day.
Now, if FreeBSD performed worse than Linux under the Mindcraft test, we can also deduce that its TCP/IP stack is worse than Linux's stack.
Wall clock time from packet arrival to time the data hits the user app. This is substantially different from throughput on a multi-threaded IP stack.
Because LMBench puts it faster than any other Unix stack.
According to our backup server (and the number of tapes we go through), since version 6.5, Backup Exec has backed up with incremental backups. I have no experience with prior versions, so I can't comment on them.
If you can't get it to work, that's not Backup Exec's fault.
Go download it.
All programs run with your rights. They effectively setuid to the user. This is *BAD* (and inherently insecure).
Eros is immune to these flaws (which also affect all Unix systems).
Or, rather, try to run Powerpoint as a user after installing it as an admin.
So compile the source on an otherwise identical system running a trusted copy of the compiler.
I could set the IRQ to 13 or 11
"Any software which causes Windows NT to blue screen is a bug in Windows NT." -- Steve Ballimer at the release of WinNT 3.51
Microsoft has hundreds of really good coders working full time
I think that the two are pretty evenly matched, at least in terms of what they *can* produce.
Why do you assume that Linux doesn't have hundreds of really good coders working (at least effectively) for pay? Strictly in the kernel (and off the top o'my head): Alan Cox, Steven Tweedie, Dave Miller, the guys VAR pays to port to Merced, (I think) Ingo (God of the P3), and I know a few others. Going farther out, Apache is paid for by IBM now, Jeremy Allison is on SGI's payroll to do JUST Samba (and they've admitted to paying other people to work on Linux, both the kernel and apps).
Furthermore, who said that the above people are worse than Microsoft's guys?
It's been known to break some NIC drivers causing a blue screen. We had a pair of systems with this issue (2 HP LCIII systems with 1 each 3Com 905B and Intel EEPro cards where the 3Com driver would cause the bluescreen).
There were some performance tweaks in SP5 along these lines, but I forget exactly what they were.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Incoming correction.
The IDE standard allows for only two IDE controllers in one system. Newer motherboards have both of the allowed controllers built in (hence the four IDE devices). If you plug in another PCI controller it will not work because of the two controllers already opperating in the system.
BIOS can only deal with (currently) two controllers. However, the IDE spec allows at least 4 controllers to be present. Whether this conflicts with anything else in the system is another matter.
Everything I have read on RAID (I'm not an expert but I have read a lot), has said it will not work on IDE systems. Here are the two reasons I can think of;
1) RAID trys to write accross at least 3 drives at once. Exactly what it writes to each drive depends on which type of RAID (0, 5...).
s/3/2/ RAID 0 and 1 require only two drives. RAID 4 and 5 require at least 3 and RAID 5 performs better with more drives.
This is no problem for SCSI drives on the same cable, because each drive operates seperatly. On IDE the drives work in the master/slave fashion and the slave is truly dependant on the master and must wait for the master to respond. Because of the master/slave issue, each drive would need to be on another cable. Which brings up problem...
There is no reason in software RAID that each drive needs to be on its own cable. You may not get as good of speed, but it is possible to run software RAID 0 or 1 on a single controller system while you need 2 controllers for RAID 4, 5, or "10" (RAID 0/1 combined).
If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, because I wouldn't mind running RAID on IDE's too.
It can be done, but it's not recommended.
Mainly because you provide ample support for my statements that FreeBeasties are just as nasty as any "Linux biggot" around.