Because normal, adjusted people do not prostitute themselves so they can watch TV.
People watch TV even when it's determental to them, people call peolpe even when it's harmfull to them, and people listen to the radio even when it becomes harmfull to them.
Yes, they do.
But you're confusing the material being addictive with a person having an obsessive disorder.
And obsessive person will become "addicted" to anything.
The question is whether a non-obsessive person can become "addicted" to that material.
Drugs - addictive. People will rob other people for money to buy drugs. People will prostitute themselves for money to buy drugs. People will even kill at times for money to buy drugs.
The Internet - Guys (since most of you are), how long would you have to go without email before you'd have sex with another guy for $5 so you could use an Internet Cafe? (That's if you wouldn't do it for free, anyway.)
Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way as drugs are.
Cigarettes. Those are addictive. Now, apply the same behavioural process. What would you do for money to buy cigarettes that you would not do for money to buy a CD?
Would you do the same thing(s) for 30 minutes of Internet access?
Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way cigarettes are.
And so on and so forth. Until you get to the point where the Internet is no more "addictive" than telephones or television or radio.
Instead of trying to defend yourself about being "weak" on "terrorism"...
Point out how our Founding Fathers had the GUTS to publicly sign their own Death Warrant (The Declaration of Independence) so they could fight for the Freedoms that this country was based upon.
And no cave-dwelling nut job is going to convince YOU that George WASHINGTON or Ben FRANKLIN or Thomas JEFFERSON was WRONG about those FREEDOMS.
If they had lost, they would have been executed.
They still had the courage and the conviction that it was better to die FREE.
If elected, I will vote against EVERY bill that limits ANY Freedom that our Founding Fathers fought and died for.
We cannot honour their sacrifice by selling those Freedoms for the illusion of safety.
What if the special hand-picked judge will not approve the warrant because:
a. It isn't specific enough (we want to electronically scan a bunch of phone calls)
b. There isn't enough evidence to support it (we think that he might be a terrorist because he lives in the same building as someone else we think is a terrorist)
The "problem" with having judicial oversight is that, sometimes, the judges do not agree that your "evidence" is sufficient.
The reason we have judicial oversight is so that a disinterested party can evaluate your "evidence" to check that you are over-stepping your limits.
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have some power similar to this? where they could obtain a court order retroactively? does this just extend their time limit on it?
Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.
With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).
The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.
#1. Shrink the individual pipes to total_bandwidth/number_of_students? So you always get sucky performance?
#2. Cap the daily/weekly/monthly download/upload? So you get sucky performance during the first half of that period, but great performance once everyone else has hit their caps. And what happens when you have a legit need to go to a site after you've hit your cap?
#3. Do it like Frame Relay where you can "burst" to the available bandwidth? But if everyone is try to burst, you get sucky performance anyway.
#4. "Shape" the bandwidth based upon protocol and use one of the above methods to share that bandwidth? This works as long as there's no way to masquerade as a different protocol.
There exists a pretty significant interface problem with the Apple Installer program such that any package requesting admin access via the AdminAuthorization key, when run in an admin user account, is given full root-level access without providing the user with a password prompt during the install.
So, when you're logged in as admin, and you install a package, that package can add whatever is in that package. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
I'm not seeing the problem here. Am I missing something?
#2. Making sure that it's compliant enough to get through other people's anti-spam tests.
#3. Testing the response (like nmap's ability to identify the OS) to identify the actual server instead of relying upon what it claims it is.
If they were worried about avoiding honeypots, they wouldn't be continually scanning ranges containing addresses that they had previously rejected because they were honeypots.
And for me, the majority of the spam comes from zombies. Open relays are easily tested and rejected at smtp time. There's no reason to accept email from an open relay unless you're running amazon.com or ebay.com or some such.
OK, so hacking into a 'trusted' Web site may not be all that easy. However, as people become more savvy about phishing scams and less people open unsolicited e-mails, fraudsters need to find alternative ways of stealing users' banking passwords.
So you could break into a bank and steal a backup tape with usernames/passwords and that would be "phishing".
Tom Chan, enterprise and client services manager for Messagelabs Asia Pacific, told me that because of more educated users and improved anti-spam engines, the success rate for traditional phishing scams is likely to fall soon. By hijacking trusted Web sites, phishers could lure many more victims.
Has "phishing" become another meaningless buzzword for "security" "experts" to toss around?
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims leading peaceful lives somewhere, who have no interest in blowing us Westerners up.
The number is more like "over a billion".
But there is also a significant and growing number who are highly determined to force Islam on the entire world, introduce the Sharia as law globally and set up everything under religious rule in something they envision as the "Caliphate."
"Significant and growing number"?
Wake up, folks! We're not talking about a handful of misguided individuals, like a Unabomber, nor a tiny sect like the Branch Davidian or whatever. We're talking about a loosely flung organization of thousands, with millions of supporters or at least sympathizers behind them.
"Thousands" out of over a billion does NOT sound like a "significant and growing number".
These people fully believe they are acting on orders from Allah, and their religious leaders encourage them in that belief. These people believe their cause is more important than their own life, let alone the lives of an arbitrary number of infidels.
And Bush also believes that God has given him a Mission.
Their goal isn't to blow up a few people; while many view 9/11 as a global disaster, I consider it little more than a minor skirmish in an ongoing cultural war with much bigger stakes.
What their "goal" is does not matter if they cannot achieve it.
And they cannot achieve it.
Or, to put it into terms even your mouth-breathing neighbor would understand: They want to take away your booze and your porn and make you pray and bang your head on the ground five times a day!
Again, what they "want" does not matter if they cannot achieve it.
But Islamic fundamentalists plan nothing short of overthrowing our governments and replacing them with the rule of foaming-at-the mouth religious zealots even worse than the ones currently ruling the US.
Here, let me put it in terms that you can understand.
How many people would those evil Muslims have to kill in order to get YOU to convert or vote for Osama?
If you would not vote for Osama, then it really does Not MATTER WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THEM.
The danger of our system being destroyed from within is just as grave as from without, and must be resisted.
No. The danger of our system being destroyed from within IS FAR GREATER THAN FROM WITHOUT.
In the US, statistically, you are more likely to kill YOURSELF than to be killed by a terrorist.
I advocate dealing in a no-nonsense, firm manner with individuals hell-bent on doing us harm, while still not demolishing our own civic structure in the process.
You put an amazing amount of faith in your government.
Who will/can verify that the "terrorists" found are actually terrorists?
Instead, why not just realize that there is a certain danger in living every day and that no amount of Big Brother will ever protect you from that?
I believe this is (part of) an optimal strategy for dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
Wrong.
The "optimal strategy" for "dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" does NOT include elevating it to an issue of "national security".
You deal with it by supporting the liberal and moderate elements and treating the extremists as the criminals that they are. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them.
But do NOT plaster it all over every paper in the world and make travellers dump their shampoo before they can fly.
SHE was ethical... as much as any slashdotter that gets cheated out of money.
The 2nd part of that makes no sense. And no, she was NOT ethical in this.
What all the slashdot hype misses is a fortune 500 board member was leaking info to the press... even after the entire board was notified of the investigation, this board member continuined to leak confidential employee reviews, and stratagy meeting results...
And? Just because one person is not ethical does not make it ethical to take un-ethical actions to find that person.
We all say people like Apple should "clean their house" and stop threatening reporters and such. Well that's exactly what she did.
Nooooooo..... it seems that she STARTED investigating reporters. And people related to reporters.
It wasn't even Dunn that offically authorized it...
Drop the word "officially". Dunn authorized it. Dunn instigated it. It is Dunn's responsibility.
Fact of the matter is that most of the board didn't object to the investigation.
And so... ? If some other people don't object, that does not make it ethical.
The spying would have been fine for an employee alleged to do the same things.. the one resigning board member was only upset that he was not allowed to "spin" the investigation because the CEO went over the board's head because THEY weren't faithful.
No, it would not be. This type of behaviour is un-ethical no matter who the target is.
This whole thing is really blown out of proportion.
No, it has not. I'm hoping that, because of this, the "pretexting" practice becomes a Federal Crime.
It's really more of a "cheating husband" thing.... people with power, position, and money, couldn't be bothered to keep the privacy of fellow board members and employees.
"couldn't be bothered"? She hired a company to actively search for information.
And when she received their report, she did NOT ask how they came up with information that would not be available outside of a court order.
THEY have to prove that you owe them money - and that usually involves having something with your signature on it.
The person perpetrating the fraud will have no problem signing your name on those documents. Those documents will be signed with your name.
Write to the credit reporting agency and ask them to take it off. The company that claims you owe them money has 30 days to prove that you do or they have to take it off.
And when the signed document comes back, the debt will go right back on your report.
YOU have to provide sufficient evidence that you did NOT incur that debt.
And even then, you have to watch your credit report so you can fix it again when that debt is sold to a collection agency.
The law is on the side of the financial institutions in this matter. It is not on your side. If you cannot provide the evidence or you later lose some of the documentation, YOU are responsible.
Even if you think that you've cleaned up your record, there have been instances where the financial companies then sold your debt to a collection agency. Even after you've "proved" that the debt was from the theft.
And the financial companies do continue to issue new credit cards even when you've supposedly "locked" your credit.
What usually sowers the deal with Linux is the fact that the company usually has some software that is for windows only and moving off it is out of the question.
Exactly.
It isn't that Linux is not "better" than Windows TODAY.
It is that Windows was "good enough" YESTERDAY.
And yesterday, the companies deployed Windows and locked up their data / training / money in apps that are not supported on Linux... yet.
All the companies I see now have their data AND business logic locked up in Access database apps that have evolved over the years to the point where they are un-maintainable. But still "necessary" to the daily operation of that company.
Where the Harvard study went wrong is that new companies are constantly forming and old ones dying. The base of companies are not static. It is dynamic. The new companies will NOT be bound by the headstart that Microsoft has in existing companies.
They're designed to stay under the radar. The longer you control the machine, the more money you make.
When will we see bots that automatically patch their hosts, install anti-virus apps and lock down the browser?
After all, it's in the bot-master's best interest to maintain their bots.
They could even do some basic system improvements like hardware driver updates, defrag'ing the drives, cleaning out the browser cache and other temp files.
Sensors in bathrooms have been around for years and years. It might impress the kids, but it's nothing new and, as you indicated, it will do nothing to advance their education.
On the subject of laptops, that's another thousand or so dollars per student. And that's not all. If the students get issued one laptop in high school, what use will a 4 year old laptop be to a senior (issued as a freshman)?
Technology of that kind SUCKS because it needs to be maintained and it becomes "old" too soon. A film projector can last 20 years, but a laptop from 10 years ago is worthless.
THINK FIVE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE!
A traditional school will still have working blackboards and textbooks and lockers.
This school will suck in money EVERY YEAR just to be able to power up the e-boards and e-books and let the "learners" into their e-lockers with their e-keys. Some of the hard drives will fail... every year... and the percentage of failures will INCREASE each year that they're used.
Dammit! The library is down again. We lost two drives in the array. We'll have to reload from backup. Sorry kids, you'll have to spend your time trying to bypass the filters to surf porn again.
Anyway, hwo much of you really wouldn't want to study at the school which is run by the world's biggest (I think it is) software company, which's products are used on 95% of computers?
Read the article. The library does not have books. It's all "digital".
That right there would be enough for me to avoid it.
Microsoft is great at MARKETING their products. They do not write great software.
And there is nothing to indicate that they know ANYTHING about education.
The company didn't pay the $63 million cost -- that was borne by the Philadelphia School District -- but shared its personnel and management skills. About 170 teens, nearly all black and mainly low-income, were chosen by lottery to make up the freshman class. The school eventually plans to enroll up to 750 students.
$63 million Supporting 170 students $370,588 per student right now.
At the 162,000-square-foot high school, which sits on nearly eight acres, the day starts at 9:15 a.m. and ends at 4:19 p.m., simulating the typical work day. Officials said studies show students do better when they start later in the day.
That's a lot of resources thrown at very few students.
Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me.
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
So the question becomes... when will this be an Ubuntu automatic upgrade and will it be for Drake or Eft or even later?
If your CPU _ISN'T_ pegged you'll probably see no improvement at all, though.
That's what I would expect.
Essentially, in this "test", they chose a system with (accidentally) had a specific set of bottlenecks (on board NIC, under-powered graphics card, under-powered CPU, intensive game) and then tested against a similar system with a card designed to compensate for some of those bottlenecks.
As you noted, getting a better video card would be the more intelligent option.
But, the PRIMARY problem is that they're running the test on two different machines. Even if they're the same make/model/etc, it doesn't matter.
Another item is that you SCRIPT the test. You don't play the game itself.
And, finally, related to what you were saying, you get a machine that does not have trouble running the app in the first place. Upgrade the video card, get a better processor, OR RUN A LESS DEMANDING GAME!
And put a SNIFFER on the network to find out what is happening on the wire. If we're talking a hub, a card that spews packets is going to outperform a card that obeys the protocols if they're played on the same network.
This "review" reads like a crappy ad for that card. There's no real information.
Today is the 2nd of September. Edgy Eft is scheduled for release "in October 2006".
That's about 60 days maximum to go from a 2nd alpha... to beta... to release. Isn't that a bit optimistic? Particularly for a release that is developer driven and packed with candy.
If you, as the admin, haven't secured your systems for KNOWN vulnerabilities, then you probably aren't one of the people concerned about 0 day exploits.
On the other hand, those of us who DO secure their systems ARE concerned. And rightfully so.
Slashdot Mirror
Because normal, adjusted people do not prostitute themselves so they can watch TV.
Yes, they do.
But you're confusing the material being addictive with a person having an obsessive disorder.
And obsessive person will become "addicted" to anything.
The question is whether a non-obsessive person can become "addicted" to that material.
And the answer is "No".
Drugs - addictive. People will rob other people for money to buy drugs. People will prostitute themselves for money to buy drugs. People will even kill at times for money to buy drugs.
The Internet - Guys (since most of you are), how long would you have to go without email before you'd have sex with another guy for $5 so you could use an Internet Cafe? (That's if you wouldn't do it for free, anyway.)
Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way as drugs are.
Cigarettes. Those are addictive. Now, apply the same behavioural process. What would you do for money to buy cigarettes that you would not do for money to buy a CD?
Would you do the same thing(s) for 30 minutes of Internet access?
Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way cigarettes are.
And so on and so forth. Until you get to the point where the Internet is no more "addictive" than telephones or television or radio.
Instead of trying to defend yourself about being "weak" on "terrorism" ...
Point out how our Founding Fathers had the GUTS to publicly sign their own Death Warrant (The Declaration of Independence) so they could fight for the Freedoms that this country was based upon.
And no cave-dwelling nut job is going to convince YOU that George WASHINGTON or Ben FRANKLIN or Thomas JEFFERSON was WRONG about those FREEDOMS.
If they had lost, they would have been executed.
They still had the courage and the conviction that it was better to die FREE.
If elected, I will vote against EVERY bill that limits ANY Freedom that our Founding Fathers fought and died for.
We cannot honour their sacrifice by selling those Freedoms for the illusion of safety.
What if the special hand-picked judge will not approve the warrant because:
a. It isn't specific enough (we want to electronically scan a bunch of phone calls)
b. There isn't enough evidence to support it (we think that he might be a terrorist because he lives in the same building as someone else we think is a terrorist)
The "problem" with having judicial oversight is that, sometimes, the judges do not agree that your "evidence" is sufficient.
The reason we have judicial oversight is so that a disinterested party can evaluate your "evidence" to check that you are over-stepping your limits.
Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.
With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).
The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.
Warrantless spying on US citizens.
Novell simply did not file some paperwork by the deadline because Novell is still working on stats related to awarding stock options.
Once they get those stats straight and file the paperwork, they'll be back in compliance and out of delisting danger (from this issue).
It all depends upon how you limit the bandwidth.
#1. Shrink the individual pipes to total_bandwidth/number_of_students? So you always get sucky performance?
#2. Cap the daily/weekly/monthly download/upload? So you get sucky performance during the first half of that period, but great performance once everyone else has hit their caps. And what happens when you have a legit need to go to a site after you've hit your cap?
#3. Do it like Frame Relay where you can "burst" to the available bandwidth? But if everyone is try to burst, you get sucky performance anyway.
#4. "Shape" the bandwidth based upon protocol and use one of the above methods to share that bandwidth? This works as long as there's no way to masquerade as a different protocol.
Each way has its own problems.
So, when you're logged in as admin, and you install a package, that package can add whatever is in that package. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
I'm not seeing the problem here. Am I missing something?
Someone who edits 1,000 articles about comic book characters may be an "expert" in that category.
But that same person may have only limited "knowledge" of world history or any of the hard sciences.
The problem is how to identify the "experts" as opposed to some bored school kid.
I'd say that they were looking for 3 things:
#1. Testing that it isn't someone's zombie.
#2. Making sure that it's compliant enough to get through other people's anti-spam tests.
#3. Testing the response (like nmap's ability to identify the OS) to identify the actual server instead of relying upon what it claims it is.
If they were worried about avoiding honeypots, they wouldn't be continually scanning ranges containing addresses that they had previously rejected because they were honeypots.
And for me, the majority of the spam comes from zombies. Open relays are easily tested and rejected at smtp time. There's no reason to accept email from an open relay unless you're running amazon.com or ebay.com or some such.
So you could break into a bank and steal a backup tape with usernames/passwords and that would be "phishing".
Has "phishing" become another meaningless buzzword for "security" "experts" to toss around?
The number is more like "over a billion".
"Significant and growing number"?
"Thousands" out of over a billion does NOT sound like a "significant and growing number".
And Bush also believes that God has given him a Mission.
What their "goal" is does not matter if they cannot achieve it.
And they cannot achieve it.
Again, what they "want" does not matter if they cannot achieve it.
Here, let me put it in terms that you can understand.
How many people would those evil Muslims have to kill in order to get YOU to convert or vote for Osama?
If you would not vote for Osama, then it really does Not MATTER WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THEM.
No. The danger of our system being destroyed from within IS FAR GREATER THAN FROM WITHOUT.
In the US, statistically, you are more likely to kill YOURSELF than to be killed by a terrorist.
You put an amazing amount of faith in your government.
Who will/can verify that the "terrorists" found are actually terrorists?
Instead, why not just realize that there is a certain danger in living every day and that no amount of Big Brother will ever protect you from that?
Wrong.
The "optimal strategy" for "dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" does NOT include elevating it to an issue of "national security".
You deal with it by supporting the liberal and moderate elements and treating the extremists as the criminals that they are. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them.
But do NOT plaster it all over every paper in the world and make travellers dump their shampoo before they can fly.
The 2nd part of that makes no sense. And no, she was NOT ethical in this.
And?
Just because one person is not ethical does not make it ethical to take un-ethical actions to find that person.
Nooooooo..... it seems that she STARTED investigating reporters. And people related to reporters.
Drop the word "officially". Dunn authorized it. Dunn instigated it. It is Dunn's responsibility.
And so
If some other people don't object, that does not make it ethical.
No, it would not be. This type of behaviour is un-ethical no matter who the target is.
No, it has not.
I'm hoping that, because of this, the "pretexting" practice becomes a Federal Crime.
"couldn't be bothered"?
She hired a company to actively search for information.
And when she received their report, she did NOT ask how they came up with information that would not be available outside of a court order.
That is un-ethical.
She is un-ethical.
The person perpetrating the fraud will have no problem signing your name on those documents. Those documents will be signed with your name.
And when the signed document comes back, the debt will go right back on your report.
YOU have to provide sufficient evidence that you did NOT incur that debt.
And even then, you have to watch your credit report so you can fix it again when that debt is sold to a collection agency.
The law is on the side of the financial institutions in this matter. It is not on your side. If you cannot provide the evidence or you later lose some of the documentation, YOU are responsible.
Even if you think that you've cleaned up your record, there have been instances where the financial companies then sold your debt to a collection agency. Even after you've "proved" that the debt was from the theft.
And the financial companies do continue to issue new credit cards even when you've supposedly "locked" your credit.
Exactly.
It isn't that Linux is not "better" than Windows TODAY.
It is that Windows was "good enough" YESTERDAY.
And yesterday, the companies deployed Windows and locked up their data / training / money in apps that are not supported on Linux
All the companies I see now have their data AND business logic locked up in Access database apps that have evolved over the years to the point where they are un-maintainable. But still "necessary" to the daily operation of that company.
Where the Harvard study went wrong is that new companies are constantly forming and old ones dying. The base of companies are not static. It is dynamic. The new companies will NOT be bound by the headstart that Microsoft has in existing companies.
When will we see bots that automatically patch their hosts, install anti-virus apps and lock down the browser?
After all, it's in the bot-master's best interest to maintain their bots.
They could even do some basic system improvements like hardware driver updates, defrag'ing the drives, cleaning out the browser cache and other temp files.
Sensors in bathrooms have been around for years and years. It might impress the kids, but it's nothing new and, as you indicated, it will do nothing to advance their education.
... every year ... and the percentage of failures will INCREASE each year that they're used.
On the subject of laptops, that's another thousand or so dollars per student. And that's not all. If the students get issued one laptop in high school, what use will a 4 year old laptop be to a senior (issued as a freshman)?
Technology of that kind SUCKS because it needs to be maintained and it becomes "old" too soon. A film projector can last 20 years, but a laptop from 10 years ago is worthless.
THINK FIVE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE!
A traditional school will still have working blackboards and textbooks and lockers.
This school will suck in money EVERY YEAR just to be able to power up the e-boards and e-books and let the "learners" into their e-lockers with their e-keys. Some of the hard drives will fail
Dammit! The library is down again. We lost two drives in the array. We'll have to reload from backup. Sorry kids, you'll have to spend your time trying to bypass the filters to surf porn again.
Read the article. The library does not have books. It's all "digital".
That right there would be enough for me to avoid it.
Microsoft is great at MARKETING their products. They do not write great software.
And there is nothing to indicate that they know ANYTHING about education.
$63 million
Supporting 170 students
$370,588 per student right now.
That's a lot of resources thrown at very few students.
So the question becomes ... when will this be an Ubuntu automatic upgrade and will it be for Drake or Eft or even later?
That's what I would expect.
Essentially, in this "test", they chose a system with (accidentally) had a specific set of bottlenecks (on board NIC, under-powered graphics card, under-powered CPU, intensive game) and then tested against a similar system with a card designed to compensate for some of those bottlenecks.
Amazing how that works.
As you noted, getting a better video card would be the more intelligent option.
But, the PRIMARY problem is that they're running the test on two different machines. Even if they're the same make/model/etc, it doesn't matter.
Another item is that you SCRIPT the test. You don't play the game itself.
And, finally, related to what you were saying, you get a machine that does not have trouble running the app in the first place. Upgrade the video card, get a better processor, OR RUN A LESS DEMANDING GAME!
And put a SNIFFER on the network to find out what is happening on the wire. If we're talking a hub, a card that spews packets is going to outperform a card that obeys the protocols if they're played on the same network.
This "review" reads like a crappy ad for that card. There's no real information.
Today is the 2nd of September.
... to beta ... to release. Isn't that a bit optimistic? Particularly for a release that is developer driven and packed with candy.
Edgy Eft is scheduled for release "in October 2006".
That's about 60 days maximum to go from a 2nd alpha
If you, as the admin, haven't secured your systems for KNOWN vulnerabilities, then you probably aren't one of the people concerned about 0 day exploits.
On the other hand, those of us who DO secure their systems ARE concerned. And rightfully so.