Although there isn't much real difference between issuing someone a Social Security card and tattooing that number upon his body...
Yeah, almost everyone can see the difference between issueing a card with a number to a person... and... linking that person's body (via tattoos or DNA or fingerprints) to any government authorization.
Almost everyone. Fascism is a state of mind. It is when you value people's Freedom less than the perceived "efficiency" of your Government.
Those rare cases where it would be useful are generally murders and rapes.
And... ? You are one step away for the "what about the children" dismissal.
So what if it is murder and rape? It is still a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent.
And before you start off on taxes, how much will this cost?
That depends upon how they do it. But, on average, it costs about $500 per DNA sample.
So... just under 200 MILLION working age people in the US... and $500 per sample.
200,000,000 x $500 = $100,000,000,000
$100 BILLION.
Do you have a good estimate? This is a lot more doable now than it was a few years back due to automated DNA sequencing.
What the fuck?!?
I don't care how "doable" it is. I don't care how "automated" it is. There is the cost associated with the processing of the samples and the LOGISTICS of getting every adult in the US processed.
So the $100 BILLION is just the STARTING POINT.
Fuck your stupid Fascist idea.
There is no such thing as Total Law Enforcement. In a Free society, sometimes the bad guys get away. It's part of the risk of being Free.
You're more at risk of dying from a car crash than you are from being raped and murdered.
You're more at risk of being murdered by a family member than by a stranger.
Of course, trying to explain the concept of Freedom to a Fascist is never going to work. It's not about money or Freedom to you, is it? It's about tracking each and every person.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because it is not specifically listed in the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) does not mean that it is not a Right.
The problem we're having right now is that our government is intent upon restricting Rights. This story is a great example of that kind of "logic".
Instead, we need to focus more on the Constitution and show that their power-grabs do NOT conform to the very blatantly stated restricted powers of government.
Rather than try to ammend the Constitution (or pass laws) to protect each Right of the People, we need to demand that the Government show a Constitutional basis for each of their laws.
And looking through the Constitution, I don't see anything supporting the Government's desire to collect information on citizens who are NOT accused of any crime.
Until they amend the Constitution to include that, then they are NOT allowed to do so.
Real world police work is NOT like the movies/TV. The GP needs to get a clue.
If your house is robbed, the cops don't even take finger prints. It's too much work/time. The payoff isn't there. They sure won't be scouring the house for DNA samples.
The only time they do go to all that work is for high profile murder cases.
So, this program would cost a LOT of money and be useless in 99.9% of crimes "investigated" by the cops.
In the remaining 0.1%, 70% of those would be useless because the cops already have a suspect (someone related to the victim, duh!) and can get the DNA/fingerprints when they need them.
Yeah, I think my taxes are too low right now. Let's increase the tax rate so the cops may be able to solve 1/3rd of.1% of the cases they get.
Does this moron know how much it would COST to do that? We're talking a DNA sample from every working age adult (15 to...?).
Just WHAT is this supposed to give us? Are employers who currently hire illegal aliens suddenly going to pay for DNA/fingerprinting of their employees to find out if they're legal?
Or is this another expense for the immigration department / police departments? Will they have to check the DNA of everyone they arrest on immigration issues?
That guy is an idiot.
Even without the Civil Liberty issues, this idea would be too expensive to implement and yield NOTHING.
It looks like "immigration" is this year's "child porn". All you politicians need to get on "immigration" today!
People run different speeds on the same switch all the time, and for not necessarily poor reasons: If you have a SMB (in this case, that's small or medium business) with maybe one big fileserver, you don't need to run gigabit to everyone...
What's with the "need to"?
I'm talking performance. Store & Forward hammers your performance. In my experience, you get better performance when you run the server at 100Mb full duplex (along with all the workstations) and use Cut Through than if you have the server on a Gb port, but run Store & Forward to your 100Mb workstations.
The "blog" argument does not fly, and has never even been an excuse offered by Google over this controversy. Geez, even Democratic Underground is listed on Google News.
They aren't listed because they are "blogs". They are listed because they have news.
Anyway, allow me to illustrate how wrong you are.
It is easily the popular opinion around here that any site that happens to be critical and frank about the Islamic religion is a "hate" site (but of course, that does not apply to the Christian religion in this case, does it?).
Hmmm, "critical and frank". Sounds a lot like "fair and balanced", eh?
Now, on to the rebutal...
So why will Google index Islamofascist propaganda sites al-Manar (owned by Hezbollah) and Khilafah.com, but decide that I don't need to see some other site that happens to point out terrorist bombings in Indonesia and the West Bank all the time?
And someone mod'ed that post "Insightful".
Sorry, but anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of judging whether some article about Islam is "critical and frank".
Frankly, anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of rational discussions of religion or politics at all.
Yet some people seem to believe that using the term "Islamfascist" is "Insightful".
One person's hate speech is another persons free speech.
No. It's all "speech". Whether it is "Free" or not depends upon the government you are under.
In the USofA, the "Free Speech" is about saying the government is wrong and not being arrested for saying that.
There is still "libel" and other other categories where "speech" is not "Free".
If Google is going to eliminate blogs as new sources when receiving complaints about their content they need to remove all of them.
You seem to have problems with this "category" concept.
A "blog" may contain actual news items. In which case, it is news.
Or a "blog" may contain nothing more than someone's bigotted rantings. In which case it is not news.
So claiming that all "blogs" should be removed from a news site simply because one sub-category was is ignorant.
Its always easy to find extreme examples to justify a position. Its just that too often those extreme examples overshadow all else in the discussion.
The "discussion" is about the "blogs" and how they do not contain any news. Just some bigot's rantings.
Google is a company, not a government.
You can still find those site via Google's web index. They just aren't listed as news sites on Google's news index. And, again, that is because they don't have any news, just some bigot's rantings.
And if you don't agree that those are the rantings of bigots, then go back and read the article that says Islam is a "cult" and a "false" religion. Then look at the stats for followers of each religion.
That is a perfect example of the kind of "thought" that also went into those "articles" that the story is about.
The "facts" are wrong and just strung together to "support" a heavily biased opinion.
One of the reasons why the USA is hated not only by others of the World especially in the Islamic countries but also the Liberal/Left Wing faction is because the ordinary, common person has a lot of leeway to make decisions about their life without elitist interference.
Really? Then which political party in the US supports a woman's right to her own body?
In Europe, there are still some old social rules that you cannot patronize certain restaurants if a member of the lower class even if you can afford to go there.
And where, specifically, would that be?
On the surface, they say they care so much for the common person but yet, look at people like John F. Kerry and similar people. They send their kids to elite private schools. Live in gated communities. Control neighborhood HOA's where pickup trucks are not allowed or must be parked inside a garage.
And Bush went to a community college? No?
Yet someone mod'ed your post "Insightful".
Many corporate executives are liberals and the same type of disdain is shown towards rank and file workers. A person I know had a manager that was a proud Liberal Democrat and he was a jerk when it came to taking vacation.
You might want to look up the word "stereotype".
Someone I know met someone (political/race/gender/age/religion) who was (mean/stupid/arrogant/dirty/immoral).
Yes, the proud tradition of bigotry remains strong. And even gets mod'ed up at times as "Interesting".
"White" propaganda (as opposed to "black" or "grey") consists of verifiable facts that support your position or discredit your opponent's position.
So even a "propaganda" piece can be good journalism and worth including on a legitimate news site.
Their problem is that they've gone to "black" propaganda in the form of an "opinion" piece. Their "facts" are not facts. Their "news" is nothing more than their opinion. And they don't even bother to attempt to appear "fair and balanced".
I agree, Google did it right when they dropped those postings from their news service.
Now, they might have a point if Google ever drops their sites from the web indexing service. But until then, they should not expect anyone else to accept their rantings as "news".
Right, system files that are written to disk but are not part of a package. Therefore, a package validation does not find them. You have to include checking user crontabs as an explict part of your system review.
Since I even provided you with a URL to my exact statements on the issue, you have gone beyond the benefit of a doubt.
You are an idiot. You are an idiot because you cannot provide a single example where my process would not result in a system that was as clean and secure as completely re-building the box would.
My system is faster, provides more information, and in all instances, provides a system that is as clean and secure as completely rebuilding the box.
You are incapable of reading with comprehension because you are an idiot who is trying to push his idiotic agenda.
This conversation is over. Feel free to post whatever ignorant tripe you wish in response. You've failed to substantiate your claims while I have provided example after example for mine.
The world's first electronic computer, Colossus, was built to decrypt German encryption during WW2, and was specifically built to be as fast and efficient as possible, because timely intelligence = lives saved.
That's nice. But being at war with a country is different than spying on your own citizens.
While I doubt that decrypting a phone conversation nowadays usually isn;t exactly what one would call an urgent thing, there may be times where it is.
There may be.
The problem is, far Far FAR FAR more often it is not.
But it is ALWAYS subject to abuse.
Being Free means that we accept the risk that the "bad guys" will abuse that Freedom to hurt/kill some of our citizens.
But they will never defeat us. Only we can do that by surrendering our Freedom for the illusion of "safety".
You don't miss a thing. Every file will belong to a package. You identify the package from the file. That tells you the specs for those files.
Any file that is not identified as part of a package may be a problem.
It's as easy as that.
You're one step away from me questioning your ability to read with comprehension. Don't cross that line.
I'm not saying that one must necessarily reimage/reinstall a machine if compromised. I'm just pointing out that it is much more complicated than simply validating package files.
No. You start with validating the packages. That will tell you if you're machine has been compromised.
Then you check the accounts.
If you haven't found any problems at that point, then ANYTHING you do will have the same net effect. But re-building the machine will have taken MORE time and NOT give you the information that none of the files on your system were compromised.
And individual accounts could have ssh identity keys setup such that an intruder would have access to your system even if all passwords were changed and all system config files verified.
Yes, and that would be no different from re-building the machine and having those same users re-create those keys.
In order to show that I'm wrong, you'll have to come up with a scenario where re-building the box would remove the threat while just validating the box would not. That includes checking the files that are not validated. As I originally stated.
I go over this every time this subject comes up and so far no one has been able to give a specific scenario where that would be the case.
#1. If the vulnerability is there, it is still there when the box is re-built.
#2. If it is a matter of passwords and accounts, those are easily checked after the box is validated.
#3. If it is something else, then explain how it got there in the first place and why it would not happen again when the box is re-built.
Washington's law regarding disenfranchisement of felons following a felony conviction is invalid as to all felons who have satisfied the terms of their sentences except for paying legal financial obligations, and who, due to their financial status, are unable to pay their legal financial obligations immediately.
Again, the specifics vary from state to state.
Also, most states (if not all) have some means or applying for a "Restoration of Rights" provided that you have completed your sentence, etc. The requirements for this vary by state.
I don't know the specifics of passports and Federal convictions. I believe there is a block on the passport form that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, but I don't know if that would be sufficient to deny you a passport.
I'm sorry for being ignorant on this particular issue, but don't you loose your right^H^H^H^H^H^privilege to vote if you go to prison in the USA?
What's with the ^H bullshit?
Voting is a Right.
But an individual may lose a Right (including the Right to Life) through due process (that means a court case). Many States still have the Death Penalty.
Now, whether someone convicted of a crime loses his Right to vote is determined by many factors. And it varies by State. But I'm sure you already knew that and you're just trolling with the "privilege" bullshit.
It is fear of the consequences of breaking a law that enslaves the People.
When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.
Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.
During the validation process, the files in the/etc/cron* would also be validated. Anything that didn't match the package would have to be checked by hand. Since all of those should have been setup by you (the admin), it should be easy to quickly validate them.
The same with the accounts. A quick check shows what accounts are configured with what access and what groups. The only time this would be a problem would be when it would also be a problem for re-building the machine. That is, when you have multiple user accounts that you cannot verify. If you're re-building the machine, you'd have to request that each account be verified and re-submitted. If you had existing documention that you'd use, then you'd also use that in the package validation process so no more time is gained or lost between the two approaches.
So, in the worst case scenario, using the package management approach does not cost you any more time than re-building the box...and... In anything other than the worst case scenario, you save time and are actually able to validate whether your box was compromised.
That last part is not possible in the re-building processes.
And knowing whether you've been compromised is a very important factor.
You are talking out of your ass. I am not a Windows user, but I would be capable of burying a trojan in your system such that you wouldn't likely find it by that method.
Then why don't you post the files/changes that you would use to do so?
Oh, you could... but you won't?
My, that's the first time anyone on the Internet ever made a claim that he refused to (read: "could not") substantiate.
While you would be able to track the base files installed, you wouldn't be able to do so with files generated files (take a look through/var...), nor would you be able to do so with intentionally changed files. (ie, config files, which often point to binaries to be executed) By your method, you'd have to go through every config file by hand, because if you're not keeping backup images, you're probably not keeping logs of what you've changed.
So, you're claiming that once I've validated every executable on my system... a config file could still run a rootkit?
I've stated before that this is not magic. Once the executables have been validated, they are validated. They have been verified to have not been compromised.
You clearly do not understand how package managers work.
Keep believing that.
Meanwhile, I've posted instructions on how to accomplish this while all you've done is claim that you could, somehow, magically hide something there.
Sure you could. Just don't get in the way of those of us who actually know what we're doing. Okay? Thanks! Buh bye.
The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.
At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.
So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".
Yes, in theory, a Linux system can be cleaned without reimaging it.
There is no "in theory" about it.
You Microsoft fanboys just don't understand the technology behind a real packaging system.
Not practically though, and there's always the possibility you missed something.
No, there is not.
You boot with a Live CD. You mount the drive. You use "ls -a" to list all the files.
You don't miss a thing. Every file will belong to a package. You identify the package from the file. That tells you the specs for those files.
Any file that is not identified as part of a package may be a problem.
It's as easy as that.
If a box is known to have been compromised, the only reasonable thing to do is reimage it to a known-good state.
Bullshit.
I've used this process to clean up boxes after a co-worker tried installing updates from source. I found the crap he installed and what files he had manually deleted. Including the dependencies he broke.
Don't try to pull any "in theory" shit on someone who's already gone through and done it. I've done it. It's easy. It's scriptable. You can argue all you want, but the fact is, I've done it and anyone else who knows the basics of their packaging system and shell scripts can do the same.
If a box is known to have been compromised, the only reasonable thing to do is reimage it to a known-good state.
Wrong.
When the system is correctly designed, each component should be easily verifiable. The ramifications of such are beyond your ability to comprehend.
The only time you'd have to re-build the box is when the components could not be verified.
That is Windows. That is not Debian/Ubuntu/RedHat/SuSE etc.
Every time this topic comes up, there are always Microsoft fanboys who claim that it just isn't possible.
The reality is that I can boot a Linux box with a Live CD and access the hard drive (read and write).
Since most of the system will have been installed via the package manager, identifying what packages were installed should be a simple matter.
Once you know the packages, you know the files, their location and their checksums. Since you booted from a Live CD, you aren't running those apps so they can be safely verified.
Anything that can not be identified... you either installed it yourself so you should be able to delete it and re-install it... or it is a problem and can be deleted.
There, a nice, clean system.
And it is because of that technology that Linux will never have the problems that Windows has with viruses, trojans, worms and "malware". A Linux system can be cleaned without re-installing it.
A bootable CD that cleans up the spyware/virus crap. This is particularly important with the rootkits showing up for Windows.
It's easy to clean a Linux box (if you should ever get infected). But it is extremely difficult to clean a Windows box.
Then help with the testing process.
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We fixed this problem in our unstable development tree, which you can't deploy at a customer, or anywhere else.
Nothing gets code from "unstable" to "production" faster than testing.
I'm running Dapper on test machines at work right now so that I can help find bugs. When it is released as "production", I will know that the bugs that are important to me are fixed.
Also, we won't backport this patch to the current stable release, because we don't have time for this.
You would not believe how hilarious that is.
Try this approach: "I will pay you $200 (US) to backport that one patch for me."
Then see what kind of response you get. Personally, I've always found that offering to pay someone to do work that I require works unbelievably well.
So we basically leave you with your problem, until our unstable development tree at some time maybe gets released.
Again, as the end user, you really have two options in that case:
#1. Grab their code and start testing so it gets to "production" faster.
#2. Pay one of their developers to backport the patch to the last "production" version.
This is where Open Source really rocks. You (the end user) can really HELP the developers produce the code you want to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo!
...
... and ... linking that person's body (via tattoos or DNA or fingerprints) to any government authorization.
Although there isn't much real difference between issuing someone a Social Security card and tattooing that number upon his body
Yeah, almost everyone can see the difference between issueing a card with a number to a person
Almost everyone. Fascism is a state of mind. It is when you value people's Freedom less than the perceived "efficiency" of your Government.
The government serves the People.
The People do not serve the Government.
So what if it is murder and rape? It is still a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent.That depends upon how they do it. But, on average, it costs about $500 per DNA sample.
So
200,000,000 x $500 = $100,000,000,000
$100 BILLION.What the fuck?!?
I don't care how "doable" it is. I don't care how "automated" it is. There is the cost associated with the processing of the samples and the LOGISTICS of getting every adult in the US processed.
So the $100 BILLION is just the STARTING POINT.
Fuck your stupid Fascist idea.
There is no such thing as Total Law Enforcement. In a Free society, sometimes the bad guys get away. It's part of the risk of being Free.
You're more at risk of dying from a car crash than you are from being raped and murdered.
You're more at risk of being murdered by a family member than by a stranger.
Of course, trying to explain the concept of Freedom to a Fascist is never going to work. It's not about money or Freedom to you, is it? It's about tracking each and every person.
Fuck you.
The problem we're having right now is that our government is intent upon restricting Rights. This story is a great example of that kind of "logic".
Instead, we need to focus more on the Constitution and show that their power-grabs do NOT conform to the very blatantly stated restricted powers of government.
Rather than try to ammend the Constitution (or pass laws) to protect each Right of the People, we need to demand that the Government show a Constitutional basis for each of their laws.
And looking through the Constitution, I don't see anything supporting the Government's desire to collect information on citizens who are NOT accused of any crime.
Until they amend the Constitution to include that, then they are NOT allowed to do so.
Real world police work is NOT like the movies/TV. The GP needs to get a clue.
.1% of the cases they get.
If your house is robbed, the cops don't even take finger prints. It's too much work/time. The payoff isn't there. They sure won't be scouring the house for DNA samples.
The only time they do go to all that work is for high profile murder cases.
So, this program would cost a LOT of money and be useless in 99.9% of crimes "investigated" by the cops.
In the remaining 0.1%, 70% of those would be useless because the cops already have a suspect (someone related to the victim, duh!) and can get the DNA/fingerprints when they need them.
Yeah, I think my taxes are too low right now. Let's increase the tax rate so the cops may be able to solve 1/3rd of
Does this moron know how much it would COST to do that? We're talking a DNA sample from every working age adult (15 to ...?).
Just WHAT is this supposed to give us? Are employers who currently hire illegal aliens suddenly going to pay for DNA/fingerprinting of their employees to find out if they're legal?
Or is this another expense for the immigration department / police departments? Will they have to check the DNA of everyone they arrest on immigration issues?
That guy is an idiot.
Even without the Civil Liberty issues, this idea would be too expensive to implement and yield NOTHING.
It looks like "immigration" is this year's "child porn". All you politicians need to get on "immigration" today!
I'm talking performance. Store & Forward hammers your performance. In my experience, you get better performance when you run the server at 100Mb full duplex (along with all the workstations) and use Cut Through than if you have the server on a Gb port, but run Store & Forward to your 100Mb workstations.
There are only TWO reasons to use Store & Forward.
#1. You're running different speeds on the same switch (why?).
#2. You really want to cut down on broadcast storms (just fix the real problem, okay?)
Other than that, go for the speed! Full duplex!
Anyway, allow me to illustrate how wrong you are.Hmmm, "critical and frank". Sounds a lot like "fair and balanced", eh?
Now, on to the rebutal...And someone mod'ed that post "Insightful".
Sorry, but anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of judging whether some article about Islam is "critical and frank".
Frankly, anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of rational discussions of religion or politics at all.
Yet some people seem to believe that using the term "Islamfascist" is "Insightful".
In the USofA, the "Free Speech" is about saying the government is wrong and not being arrested for saying that.
There is still "libel" and other other categories where "speech" is not "Free".You seem to have problems with this "category" concept.
A "blog" may contain actual news items. In which case, it is news.
Or a "blog" may contain nothing more than someone's bigotted rantings. In which case it is not news.
So claiming that all "blogs" should be removed from a news site simply because one sub-category was is ignorant.The "discussion" is about the "blogs" and how they do not contain any news. Just some bigot's rantings.
Google is a company, not a government.
You can still find those site via Google's web index. They just aren't listed as news sites on Google's news index. And, again, that is because they don't have any news, just some bigot's rantings.
And if you don't agree that those are the rantings of bigots, then go back and read the article that says Islam is a "cult" and a "false" religion. Then look at the stats for followers of each religion.
The "facts" are wrong and just strung together to "support" a heavily biased opinion.Really? Then which political party in the US supports a woman's right to her own body?And where, specifically, would that be?And Bush went to a community college? No?
Yet someone mod'ed your post "Insightful".You might want to look up the word "stereotype".
Someone I know met someone (political/race/gender/age/religion) who was (mean/stupid/arrogant/dirty/immoral).
Yes, the proud tradition of bigotry remains strong. And even gets mod'ed up at times as "Interesting".
"White" propaganda (as opposed to "black" or "grey") consists of verifiable facts that support your position or discredit your opponent's position.
So even a "propaganda" piece can be good journalism and worth including on a legitimate news site.
Their problem is that they've gone to "black" propaganda in the form of an "opinion" piece. Their "facts" are not facts. Their "news" is nothing more than their opinion. And they don't even bother to attempt to appear "fair and balanced".
I agree, Google did it right when they dropped those postings from their news service.
Now, they might have a point if Google ever drops their sites from the web indexing service. But until then, they should not expect anyone else to accept their rantings as "news".
You are an idiot. You are an idiot because you cannot provide a single example where my process would not result in a system that was as clean and secure as completely re-building the box would.
My system is faster, provides more information, and in all instances, provides a system that is as clean and secure as completely rebuilding the box.
You are incapable of reading with comprehension because you are an idiot who is trying to push his idiotic agenda.
This conversation is over. Feel free to post whatever ignorant tripe you wish in response. You've failed to substantiate your claims while I have provided example after example for mine.
The problem is, far Far FAR FAR more often it is not.
But it is ALWAYS subject to abuse.
Being Free means that we accept the risk that the "bad guys" will abuse that Freedom to hurt/kill some of our citizens.
But they will never defeat us. Only we can do that by surrendering our Freedom for the illusion of "safety".
Here's my ORIGINAL statement on the issue:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186319&thresh
You're one step away from me questioning your ability to read with comprehension. Don't cross that line.No. You start with validating the packages. That will tell you if you're machine has been compromised.
Then you check the accounts.
If you haven't found any problems at that point, then ANYTHING you do will have the same net effect. But re-building the machine will have taken MORE time and NOT give you the information that none of the files on your system were compromised.Yes, and that would be no different from re-building the machine and having those same users re-create those keys.
In order to show that I'm wrong, you'll have to come up with a scenario where re-building the box would remove the threat while just validating the box would not. That includes checking the files that are not validated. As I originally stated.
I go over this every time this subject comes up and so far no one has been able to give a specific scenario where that would be the case.
#1. If the vulnerability is there, it is still there when the box is re-built.
#2. If it is a matter of passwords and accounts, those are easily checked after the box is validated.
#3. If it is something else, then explain how it got there in the first place and why it would not happen again when the box is re-built.
Also, most states (if not all) have some means or applying for a "Restoration of Rights" provided that you have completed your sentence, etc. The requirements for this vary by state.
I don't know the specifics of passports and Federal convictions. I believe there is a block on the passport form that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, but I don't know if that would be sufficient to deny you a passport.
What's with the ^H bullshit?
Voting is a Right.
But an individual may lose a Right (including the Right to Life) through due process (that means a court case). Many States still have the Death Penalty.
Now, whether someone convicted of a crime loses his Right to vote is determined by many factors. And it varies by State. But I'm sure you already knew that and you're just trolling with the "privilege" bullshit.
It is fear of the consequences of breaking a law that enslaves the People.
When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.
Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.
During the validation process, the files in the /etc/cron* would also be validated. Anything that didn't match the package would have to be checked by hand. Since all of those should have been setup by you (the admin), it should be easy to quickly validate them.
...and...
The same with the accounts. A quick check shows what accounts are configured with what access and what groups. The only time this would be a problem would be when it would also be a problem for re-building the machine. That is, when you have multiple user accounts that you cannot verify. If you're re-building the machine, you'd have to request that each account be verified and re-submitted. If you had existing documention that you'd use, then you'd also use that in the package validation process so no more time is gained or lost between the two approaches.
So, in the worst case scenario, using the package management approach does not cost you any more time than re-building the box
In anything other than the worst case scenario, you save time and are actually able to validate whether your box was compromised.
That last part is not possible in the re-building processes.
And knowing whether you've been compromised is a very important factor.
Oh, you could
My, that's the first time anyone on the Internet ever made a claim that he refused to (read: "could not") substantiate.So, you're claiming that once I've validated every executable on my system
I've stated before that this is not magic. Once the executables have been validated, they are validated. They have been verified to have not been compromised.Keep believing that.
Meanwhile, I've posted instructions on how to accomplish this while all you've done is claim that you could, somehow, magically hide something there.
Sure you could. Just don't get in the way of those of us who actually know what we're doing. Okay? Thanks! Buh bye.
The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.
At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.
So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".
Being "in trouble" is a good thing in these circumstances.
If you don't publicly challenge the actions of the people who are trying to oppress you, you will lose by default.
Freedom is not free. Our forefathers were willing to die for it. The least we can do is risk some jail time (don't forget to vote!).
You Microsoft fanboys just don't understand the technology behind a real packaging system.No, there is not.
You boot with a Live CD.
You mount the drive.
You use "ls -a" to list all the files.
You don't miss a thing. Every file will belong to a package. You identify the package from the file. That tells you the specs for those files.
Any file that is not identified as part of a package may be a problem.
It's as easy as that.Bullshit.
I've used this process to clean up boxes after a co-worker tried installing updates from source. I found the crap he installed and what files he had manually deleted. Including the dependencies he broke.
Don't try to pull any "in theory" shit on someone who's already gone through and done it. I've done it. It's easy. It's scriptable. You can argue all you want, but the fact is, I've done it and anyone else who knows the basics of their packaging system and shell scripts can do the same.Wrong.
When the system is correctly designed, each component should be easily verifiable. The ramifications of such are beyond your ability to comprehend.
The only time you'd have to re-build the box is when the components could not be verified.
That is Windows. That is not Debian/Ubuntu/RedHat/SuSE etc.
Every time this topic comes up, there are always Microsoft fanboys who claim that it just isn't possible.
... you either installed it yourself so you should be able to delete it and re-install it ... or it is a problem and can be deleted.
The reality is that I can boot a Linux box with a Live CD and access the hard drive (read and write).
Since most of the system will have been installed via the package manager, identifying what packages were installed should be a simple matter.
Once you know the packages, you know the files, their location and their checksums. Since you booted from a Live CD, you aren't running those apps so they can be safely verified.
Anything that can not be identified
There, a nice, clean system.
And it is because of that technology that Linux will never have the problems that Windows has with viruses, trojans, worms and "malware". A Linux system can be cleaned without re-installing it.
If you doubt it, try it.
A bootable CD that cleans up the spyware/virus crap. This is particularly important with the rootkits showing up for Windows.
It's easy to clean a Linux box (if you should ever get infected). But it is extremely difficult to clean a Windows box.
I'm running Dapper on test machines at work right now so that I can help find bugs. When it is released as "production", I will know that the bugs that are important to me are fixed.You would not believe how hilarious that is.
Try this approach: "I will pay you $200 (US) to backport that one patch for me."
Then see what kind of response you get. Personally, I've always found that offering to pay someone to do work that I require works unbelievably well.Again, as the end user, you really have two options in that case:
#1. Grab their code and start testing so it gets to "production" faster.
#2. Pay one of their developers to backport the patch to the last "production" version.
This is where Open Source really rocks. You (the end user) can really HELP the developers produce the code you want to use.