Your approach has more to do with securing online transactions, which is also good. Personally, I'd prefer that I have to logon to my bank and start the transaction there. Then the details can be worked out between the bank and the vendor.
That would also be good when the bank's site comes back with "ALERT! Vendor's site has had 500 problems out of 500 transactions! Continue at own risk!"
I get over a hundred a week from "PayPal". I don't even bother sending them to spamcop anymore.
The part about not having any links in the email is good. But not good enough. You could have been told to go to mypaypalsecurity.com and logon. Then you'd be back to the man-in-the-middle attack.
Not to mention that most people who do read those emails will not know enough to not click on a link when the company involved has not specifically stated that they will not send links.
Suppose you get a legitimate email from myEBAYsecurity.com? You go to that site and a man-in-the-middle attack presents you with a 100% perfect eBay site? All it takes is skill and time and desire. The technology is available today.
As long as banks and other sites use direct email to communicate with people, they will be subject to these attacks.
There is nothing that can be done to prevent them when email is the contact method.
Your bank already has your home address (and probably your home phone number).
All they have to do is to institute a "no email from us, ever" policy and spend some time getting that message out to their customers.
Sure, this will cut down on the ad revenue from the banks, so what?
If they absolutely need to have some form of email interaction, they can run an internal (no external SMTP connections) web-based email system so the clients (you) can email the bank's employees.
If you can't do something securely, maybe you should not be doing it.
You'll see port 80 connections to your internal webservers and to external sites... but you shouldn't see port 80 connections to other workstations. That's a flag.
And so on with every other port. Particularly if you have a well designed network where the workstations have no need to connect to other workstations.
Like someone reading a different e-mail than yesterday?;-)
Nope. More like a workstation suddenly sending, via port 25 (SMTP), to a box outside your network. That's a huge flag.
It's very easy to do. You should already know what ports/protocols are in use on your network and what should be connecting on them to what. Start there and investigate any usage you didn't expect to see.
Everything happening on your network should be authorized by you. If you're worried about security, then you need to get some benchmarks of the legitimate traffic on your network so you can have the system watch for different patterns.
The only possible way for you to be correct, is if you are defining the christian as a cannibalistic murderer, which is not one of the many common defining characterstics generally used to apply that label.
As you stated, there is no definition of "Christian"... so any definition is applicable.
Whether it is commonly accepted or not does not matter because, as you said, there is no definition of "Christian".
So, by your belief and your religion, Satan is also a "Christian". But I'm sure that you won't see the problem in that concept.
Since you brought logic into it, what you are trying to do is called argumentum ad odium, with a little bit of an ad hominem attack thrown in.
First of all, that is "debate" not "logic".
Secondly, unfortunately for you, those terms are defined, with examples.
Seems you're wrong, again and again and again. This "definition" thing really kicks your ass, doesn't it?
You are so hung up on the label of who should be allowed to call themselves a christian, you are ignoring that I've told you multiple times the importance is not the label christian, it's the act of being saved.
Anyone is allowed to call themselves anything they want to.
Whether they fit the definition is another matter.
You want to talk about "saved" and your requirements for that? I can do that, too.
I'm concerned with salvation, which I define as follows: The acceptance of perfect atonement, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
So, Native Americans prior to the 1500's are not "saved" because they are not aware of Jesus?
Your concept of "god" must include the concept of "asshole" for damning people who didn't have a chance of hearing about Jesus.
Fascinating.
And no, Satan does not accept that he needs forgiveness from sin, at least not any where that I've seen.
But he could.
I'm sorry if that prevents you from taking joy in knowing people who were bad will suffer.
It's not "joy". I'm wondering how anyone can support a god who rewards child molesters with eternal joy.
Why does Jesus love child molesters (in your religion)?
Does Jesus think that that is what children are for (in your religion)?
Finally, to quote you, aren't you aware of what Jesus told his disciples on this matter? Matthew 5:28 - Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Strange, Matthew 5:28 seems to read... "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Maybe your Bible is broken and that is why you're confused about this?
By the way, James wrote James. Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.
So, are you saying that James was making up his own rules?
You do not accept that James was divinely inspired when he wrote those words and that those words are the words of God/Jesus?
Or maybe you don't believe that Jesus taught that lesson to James?
You seem to be implying that Jesus did not state that concept.
The payload will be the same application that can be run on a dedicated machine.
All you're recommending is that instead of a secured network with a centralized management box, the network will be unsecured and a worm will install the same apps on random machines.
The transport mechanism is as "flexible" as it is going to get. Any machine, anywhere on your network can be infected if you let it.
Which just leaves the worm's payload which is the monitoring applications and improving them will not result in any increases for your worm scenario that will not also be available for the dedicated box scenario.
It all comes down to one simple concept:
$200 dedicated box
vs unsecured workstations and code being randomly installed on them.
Do you not see any advantage in having a different set of open source tools for network monitoring?
You aren't using a different set of tools. The worm is the transport mechanism to get the tools installed on the machines. The scanning/monitoring apps are the payload.
The worm infects a machine, installs the payload and then the payload does the work.
For a worm to run, the machines have to be open to attack by other machines on the network. In a correctly designed network, the workstations would be better secured. Only the machines that the sysadmin has designated would be allowed to install software on the workstations.
All you're doing is deploying the tools to random machines from random machines on the network rather than centralizing them at one location.
At the worst, you have more code installed on more machines doing a lot more scans yet not providing more data than the centralized system.
At best, you have you have more code on a couple random machines doing more scans yet not providing more data than the centralized system.
With a centralized system, you get all the benefits of your concept, without the negatives of random machines installing software on each other, all for the cost of a dedicated box. Given that you can pick up a really cheap box for $200 (USD) I don't see the value of your approach.
But if your environment is already broken, then why not fix it instead of trying to patch it with worms?
Because if it's a worm I don't need to dedicate hardware to network monitoring, the network pcs that run at 5-10% cpu and have a couple hundred meg free of physical memory can do it
And when someone trips over the power cord? The purpose of dedicating hardware is so you can maintain that system at a higher level of availablity.
Having random workstations do the monitoring is useless because you won't have any benchmarks over time. Unless they send that data around to each other in which case you're using up your bandwidth. Or they could send the data to a dedicated machine to store it, but that gets back to the dedicated machine concept.
How about HP Openview or Network Node Manager. I'm not talking about monitoring a single lan segment here, I'm talking about an enterprise environment with tens of thousands of nodes.
"tens of thousands of nodes" and you don't want to dedicate a single machine to this?
"tens of thousands of nodes" means a LOT of traffic with your proposal.
yes, thats one way to do it, but dealing with SNMP mibs is a pain in the ass when you're dealing with multiple vendors, every try running MRTG against Dell PowerConnect switches? You can't, they don't adhere to RFC with SNMP, you have to buy their tool to do switch management/monitoring.
But a worm will be able to do so?
Why not just take the code that the worm uses to monitor/manage those and incorporate it into the other Free apps?
Further, what if your environment is a product of acquisitions in many sites, that means different products for different firewalls, unless you can just purchase pix525es at will I guess.
Is there a problem with syslog?
Again, if a worm can manage that environment, why not just use the management code from the worm in whatever Free tools you use?
It is currently, but I think the idea of gathering agents that a roaming ability on the network would be great for looking for new nodes on the network, local users trying to run exploits, build their own little networks, etc.
Again, why not use the code that the worm uses for that in the centralized tools?
Or are the worms going to constantly scan the network for new systems? How would you be able to tell your worm scans from illegitimate scans?
With a centralized system, you already know what machines should be scanning. Any other machines scanning should send up an alert.
I'm not saying that this article promises the latest greatest or anything, but I can see how mobile agents, maybe tied into a backend SQL database to do logging and handle a limited AI reasoning table, would be very handy.
I don't. Not if you already control the machines and the network. Centralized management is far more efficient and reliable and managable.
Another thing it would be good for is when you do an acquisition of another mid-sized or enterprise company and their IT staff didn't document things well and is hostile from the take over.
Again, a centralized management system would not have any problems with that.
These would be great asset and config discovery agents.
How? I can already scan their machines from the centralized system. I have control of their network. I should be able to diagram their systems without the worms.
Why would you want to use a worm for that? A worm will install itself on each machine.
Why not just run the centralized scanning tools that you mentioned?
It would be cool if you could have these worms each perform certain functions (one to better manage spanning-tree for instance, so when a link fails spanning tree rebuilds faster for example) with some sort of AI, or really even a really good base line vs current activity comparison machine, to intelligently manage WANs and LANs.
Why would I want to infect my switches and routers with this? I already have SNMP. Spanning tree kicks in almost instantaniously.
Be nice to have worms that watch for machines all the sudden opening ports that they never have before, all the sudden opening up multicast or what not, or even finding that bad machine sending out bad frames on the network.
The only way a worm would do that would be if it had infected the problem machine (in which case, why not just run a firewall on it) or if it had infected your switchs/routers.
Why not just write the app to run on those in the first place? Why make it a worm?
Granted you can do all these things now with a mix of expensive monitoring tools and a lot of config work with tools like ethereal and mrtg and big brother/big sister, etc. But this might be an easier way to do the same thing.
What "expensive" tools?
All you'd need is SNMP and the knowledge to setup your firewall correctly and a machine to receive the syslog messages from your firewall and parse them.
It's far more efficient to have the choke points do the monitoring than to have worms running around on your network.
Worms are only useful for spreading crap to machines you don't control. Once you have control there are so many more efficient ways to push code to them or monitor them.
I don't have a problem with you saying it, because it's easy to dismiss as hyperbole.
It's hardly hyperbola. The fact that you're trying to dismiss it as such shows that your position is flawed.
But that's not surprising given your background.
However, it is inaccurate, but the term itself is very loose.
No, if your earlier statement is correct, my statement cannot be inaccurate.
I guess they don't teach "logic" at that Sunday School you go to, eh?
I have more trouble with you adding the word "all". The problem with the word Christian is that it doesn't have a rigid definition and is used in many different contexts.
I'm sure that you'd like for that to be factual, but it isn't.
It's only people like you who want it to encompass anything and everyone who feel that it should be that way.
"Christianity" has the problem of only ONE real Christian and millions upon millions of people who will live their lives as they want and still claim to be "Christians".
When pressed for a definition of what a "Christian" is... they fail. You (plural) simply cannot present a clear statement of what a "Christian" is that:
#1. Includes your self and your actions..and.. #2. Does not include individuals such as Satan or mass murders.
Which makes it damn amusing to watch you twist and turn and try to wriggle around the simple facts.
The acceptance that you have sinned, that God is perfect, and acceptance that He will forgive your sins.
Which would include Satan.
Great, you've managed to include the epitome of Sin in your definition.
There is no difference. Neither is absolutely perfect, thus neither deserves heaven. Both may accept atonement, or face judgement.
And so you've included the worst of the child rapers & murderers as being worthy of your "Heaven".
Oh, maybe you just aren't familiar with what Jesus said to his disciples on this matter?
James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
In fact, you should read through that entire section (and later, read the entire Bible). Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.
First off, you need to learn what "sophistry" means.
I again make no attempt to put words in the mouth or mind of Satan.
I take it you cannot read? It's in the Bible. Or are you just opposed to reading the Bible?
If you're specifically talking about Matthew 4, I don't actually see that Satan is described as "believing" anything.
So, what you're telling me is that Satan, the Angel of the Morning, known as Lucifer who was at the Hand of God would go to the personal effort of offering some kid all the cities of the world if that kid would worship him... but would not know that kid was the Son of God.
Your defense is pure sophistry.
You can try to avoid the question all you want, but by your definition, Satan is a true Christian.
Nor am I attempting to speak for all Christianity -- though you're very earnestly working to somehow corner me into committing myself to that.
Oh spare me the martyr play. You are not the Christ. Get down off that cross.
I don't personally think there is a coherent set of criteria that could be listed in the way you're wanting, not for any of the "book religions," though that's really what the books seem to be attempting.
Ummmm, the Bible? Have you heard of it? The New Testament if just filled with the teachings of this guy called "Jesus". Maybe you should try reading it sometime?
Or do you believe that if you lived your life as Jesus lived his that you would not be a "Christian".
Oops. Sorry, I forgot that even Satan qualifies as a "Christian" by your definition.
The prating admonition to read my Bible more is just a sort of rhetorical throat clearing, better suited to the sort of trolling "I scored a point!" arguments that people have all day long on boards like this.
Given that, why is it so easy to score points off of you? The answers are already there in your Bible. All you have to do is read it.
Here, start at James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Hmmmm, it seems that Jesus taught a little bit differently than you believe.
Imagine that. A "Christian" who speaks the opposite of what the Christ taught and what is clearly written in the Bible. Will wonders never cease.
I've never myself up as the oracular source of wisdom on all criteria that constitute Christian belief. Are you trying to catch me in a hypocrisy I have no inclination to commit, or what? If that's all you're about, let it go.
Uhhhhhh, this is a BASIC precept of the teachings of Jesus. You might want to look up that word "precept".
I am saying, very simply and to return to my original post, that "right" and "good" are inherent to certain actions and moral choices -- and that it is fundamentally a mistake and a grievous one to think that rightness and goodness derive from any authority figure.
Is not God an "authority figure"?
Would he not be THE "authority figure"?
Again, that's covered in your Bible.
Things are not right or good because God or Jesus said they were.
So you ARE stating that a "moral" choice can be contrary to the teachings of God/Jesus. Fascinating.
To give you another example, I find most Christian doctrine surrounding the idea that "good works" can't earn a spot in heaven deeply troubling.
Yet on many occasions, Jesus specifically mentioned "good works" without mentioning faith as being required to be "saved". Check around, you can find them easily.
Except "Christian" doesn't mean anything, in and of itself.
Then you will have absolutely no problem with the statement that all Christians are brainwashed morons perpetuating a cult of symbolic cannibalism and sexual perversion with alter boys.
If that statement offends you, then "Christian" does mean something to you, "in and of itself".
It really seems what you are asking me is, "Can you be saved and still do *some horrible thing*".
Nope. Why don't you stop trying to guess what I really mean and just answer the question?
The answer to that is yes. You can be saved, and still be a horrible person and live a horrible life.
Which is a tangent to the original question, but leads to the question of "So what is the requirement for being "saved"?"
Suppose there's some guy who likes raping and killing little girls. Is he "saved"?
If not, then how do you justify that with your statement that even horrible people leading horrible lives can be "saved"?
If so, then what is the final difference between someone leading a holy and pious life dedicated to aiding others and a guy who like to rape little girls and flay them alive?
Do they both get the same Heaven and the same amount of time (eternity) in it?
Would it be "moral" to support a god who grants eternal joy to a guy who rapes children?
I'm confused, are you actually confusing a label with a deep personal belief in theology? Is what you are asking me, really, can someone be both sincere and sincerely wrong?
No. I'm asking if someone who does not follow the teachings of Christ can be a "Christian". That's what I typed, that's what I meant.
Maybe you should spit your point out instead of trying to set up a semantic trap based on some word game you are trying to play.
There is not semantic trap. If you are not comfortable with the question, then you have not examined your religion. Don't try to blame me for that.
If Christ taught that torture was wrong, that would be a teaching of Christ.
If someone follows the teachings of Christ, and knows Christ, then s/he is a "Christian".
If someone does not follow the teachings of Christ, but knows Christ, is s/he still a "Christian"? If so, then "Christian" would also apply to Satan.
If not, then how many of Christ's teachings can you ignore and still be a "Christian"?
The answer is easy, once you understand your own religion. Only those who do not understand will have a problem and get upset.
Apparently you think I'm trying to represent not only all of Christianity but also Satan? Sorry, I can't describe Satan's belief system in the manner you suggest.
You should read your Bible more. Pay particular attention to Satan's attempts to personally tempt Jesus.
By your stated definition (belief being the only requirement for a "Christian"), Satan would be a "Christian".
For what little it's worth, I have the same problem with what you're talking about: "faith" is not in some way a wellspring of natural and total obedience to the will of God, and does not in any way trump or "clear" or obsolete one's conscience.
Are you saying that following Christ's teaching can be contrary to what your conscience tells you is "right" or "good"?
I can see that in the Old Testament, but Jesus' teachings weren't there.
Does that mean that, in certain circumstances, you can find yourself morally opposed to Jesus? The guy who died to forgive your sins? The guy who suffered so that you could have an eternity in Heaven?
Can a "Christian" be morally opposed to the teachings of Christ, the Son of God?
Fragmenting might be in their best interests.
on
Sun Eyes PostgreSQL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Way back at the beginning of the *nix wars, there wasn't any incentive not to share the improvements and such of each version... but they still fragmented.
The same situation exists here. Sun is not legally bound to release any improvements back to the base, but can legally use any improvements that others provide to the base.
It's in their interests to give back to the community a lot of the changes they've made, so that the work done on the free version doesn't unnecessarily duplicate the proprietary version, and so that the next release of postgres doesn't force Sun to rewrite half their modifications.
That is what fragmentation is. One vendor chooses one path while a different chooses a different path.
Over time, the minor changes and improvements pile on until the two versions are not inter-changable anymore.
Yet each individual change/improvement/fix is insignificant and does not break compatibility.
We've seen this before and it happens again and again. It's always in the company's best interest to support the code base and the community... yet it always fragments.
Sun gets to use repackage PostgreSQL however they like, more people will be using PostgreSQL and finding bugs and adding features and writing utilities, more books will be sold, more consulting opportunities - everyone wins.
Nope. While it is true that more people can use the code and fix bugs... there is nothing saying that those bug fixes must be released to the general public.
So if Sun fixes a bug, they don't have to release that fix to anyone.
So the bug will still exist in the base.
This is what leads to "fragmentation". Over time, the bug fixes and enhancements that are NOT released back to the base mean that the two versions (the base system and Sun's version) drift further and further apart until they become incompatible.
Software houses love the BSD-style licenses because it allows them to do that.
The GPL is useful in that it prevents such from happening. All bug fixes and such are released back to the base.
In the end, which is "better" depends upon your goals. Sun's goals are not the same as Linus'.
But then he got into FTL. And an artificially intelligent (and emotional) Internet. And living images of people only sustained by the thoughts of their creator. Let's toss in some obsessive compulsive references. And now we have instantanious travel.
Taken as itself, Ender's Game was a really good book.
Taken as a whole, the series is a good example of bad "Sci-Fi".
It's a fairly simple concept (sticking to Christian dogma).
#1. Either the only way to get into Heaven is to follow the "Christian" way... in which case the kind, loving, just God damns people he created and he place in an environment where they would not hear of his love or his son...
#2. or being "Christian" is not the only way to get into Heaven.
So if #1, then god is one sadistic bastard. Since god is obviously NOT a sadistic bastard (he is love and joy and life) then #2 must be the Truth.
But if #2 is the Truth, what are the statistics for non-Christians getting into Heaven? Is there a higher percentage of Native Americans pre-1500's in Heaven than pre-1500 Christians?
#2a. Are we wrecking those people's chances at an eternity of bliss because we're converting them? #2b. Or are we increasing the statistical likelyhood that they'll end up in Heaven?
At which point, the "Christians" usually cut and run. Native peoples are not really "people" like we're people. They're just walking, talking, 3-dimensional game counters. You get points if you "save" them, but they didn't really exist before you booted up the game. When the game isn't on, they go back in the box.
Confusion comes with confliction with previously held beliefs, as does the rest of your post.
Nope. Falling off a log is simple. It doesn't matter what my prior beliefs are. The same thing with supply and demand as an economic model. And so forth.
People have trouble with the concept that something that important can be that simple. People also get confused with their notions that it's not "fair", which, when you think about it, it isn't. It's tipped profoundly in our favor.
Again, it is only "that simple" if you don't answer all the specifics.
Is it "good" to torture someone who doesn't believe what you believe so that he might start believing what you believe?
If it is "simple" then you can give a "simple" yes/no answer to that.
If it is not "simple" then you will not be able to do so.
You can't slice out portions of a belief in order to compare it to another belief.
Of course you can. That's the only way to find the parts that are the same and the parts that are different.
What is inconsistent about the following:
1) It is wrong to murder. 2) Heaven is better than life on Earth. 3) The purpose of staying on Earth is to give others a chance to find the way to heaven.
That depends upon the implementation of #3. Since you only, specifically, mention murder, is torturing people okay if it helps them find heaven?
While I'm sure if you tried hard enough you can manage to make that say it's better to kill a Christian than it is to kill an non-Christian, the simple fact of the matter is a Christians is supposed to believe that the whole reason for being here on Earth is to reach out to non-Christians. Killing them doesn't serve that purpose very well.
But does enslaving those non-Christians help them to find Heaven? Maybe you can beat the slaves who don't seem to be working hard enough at finding Heaven?
After all, any amount of pain on Earth would surely be worth an eternity in Heaven, right?
I'd argue with your meaningless "statistically" blah blah, as well. What metrics are you using to define "good" things and "bad" things in that instance anyway? Christianity is very coherent, and straight forward. I think that's what gets people so confused about it. It's really very simple and there are no catches.
If it were "very coherent, and straight forward" then how could people get "so confused about it"?
That doesn't make sense. If something is simple, there is no confusion. Confusion only comes from complexity.
Christian Dogma, boiled down: ALL people are "bad" "Good" is defined as absolute perfection in every possible way. No person can be "good" ALL people can be forgiven for being "bad" Forgiveness comes by accepting that forgiveness was given by the death and resurrection of Christ.
And if someone does NOT believe that they are "bad" by you definition, then it is okay for you to do anything (up to murder) to convince them that they ARE "bad" and that they need to accept YOUR religion so they can live in Heaven.
Yes, Christianity was used to justify slavery and even beating slaves. And by your current definition, those would be "good" Christians (even though they were "bad" people with regard to sin).
The rest just muddies the water as people struggled to define what "perfect in every possible way" means.
No, "the rest" is all about what is allowable to be done to the non-Christians to get them into Heaven.
Slashdot Mirror
If the guy has to show up to a bank, there is a limit to how many accounts he can pillage and he will show up on the security camera.
If the guy can have a computer do it online and bounce through a cracked box, the limit is at least 1,000x greater with no danger of discovery.
Stopping phishing requires a different approach.
Your approach has more to do with securing online transactions, which is also good. Personally, I'd prefer that I have to logon to my bank and start the transaction there. Then the details can be worked out between the bank and the vendor.
That would also be good when the bank's site comes back with "ALERT! Vendor's site has had 500 problems out of 500 transactions! Continue at own risk!"
I get over a hundred a week from "PayPal". I don't even bother sending them to spamcop anymore.
The part about not having any links in the email is good. But not good enough. You could have been told to go to mypaypalsecurity.com and logon. Then you'd be back to the man-in-the-middle attack.
Not to mention that most people who do read those emails will not know enough to not click on a link when the company involved has not specifically stated that they will not send links.
... to tell the difference.
Suppose you get a legitimate email from myEBAYsecurity.com? You go to that site and a man-in-the-middle attack presents you with a 100% perfect eBay site? All it takes is skill and time and desire. The technology is available today.
As long as banks and other sites use direct email to communicate with people, they will be subject to these attacks.
There is nothing that can be done to prevent them when email is the contact method.
Your bank already has your home address (and probably your home phone number).
All they have to do is to institute a "no email from us, ever" policy and spend some time getting that message out to their customers.
Sure, this will cut down on the ad revenue from the banks, so what?
If they absolutely need to have some form of email interaction, they can run an internal (no external SMTP connections) web-based email system so the clients (you) can email the bank's employees.
If you can't do something securely, maybe you should not be doing it.
And so on with every other port. Particularly if you have a well designed network where the workstations have no need to connect to other workstations.Nope. More like a workstation suddenly sending, via port 25 (SMTP), to a box outside your network. That's a huge flag.
It's very easy to do. You should already know what ports/protocols are in use on your network and what should be connecting on them to what. Start there and investigate any usage you didn't expect to see.
Everything happening on your network should be authorized by you. If you're worried about security, then you need to get some benchmarks of the legitimate traffic on your network so you can have the system watch for different patterns.
Whether it is commonly accepted or not does not matter because, as you said, there is no definition of "Christian".
So, by your belief and your religion, Satan is also a "Christian". But I'm sure that you won't see the problem in that concept.First of all, that is "debate" not "logic".
Secondly, unfortunately for you, those terms are defined, with examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Seems you're wrong, again and again and again. This "definition" thing really kicks your ass, doesn't it?Anyone is allowed to call themselves anything they want to.
Whether they fit the definition is another matter.
You want to talk about "saved" and your requirements for that? I can do that, too.So, Native Americans prior to the 1500's are not "saved" because they are not aware of Jesus?
Your concept of "god" must include the concept of "asshole" for damning people who didn't have a chance of hearing about Jesus.
Fascinating.But he could.It's not "joy". I'm wondering how anyone can support a god who rewards child molesters with eternal joy.
Why does Jesus love child molesters (in your religion)?
Does Jesus think that that is what children are for (in your religion)?Strange, Matthew 5:28 seems to read
Maybe your Bible is broken and that is why you're confused about this?So, are you saying that James was making up his own rules?
You do not accept that James was divinely inspired when he wrote those words and that those words are the words of God/Jesus?
Or maybe you don't believe that Jesus taught that lesson to James?
You seem to be implying that Jesus did not state that concept.
The payload will be the same application that can be run on a dedicated machine.
All you're recommending is that instead of a secured network with a centralized management box, the network will be unsecured and a worm will install the same apps on random machines.
The transport mechanism is as "flexible" as it is going to get. Any machine, anywhere on your network can be infected if you let it.
Which just leaves the worm's payload which is the monitoring applications and improving them will not result in any increases for your worm scenario that will not also be available for the dedicated box scenario.
It all comes down to one simple concept:
$200 dedicated box
vs
unsecured workstations and code being randomly installed on them.
The worm infects a machine, installs the payload and then the payload does the work.
For a worm to run, the machines have to be open to attack by other machines on the network. In a correctly designed network, the workstations would be better secured. Only the machines that the sysadmin has designated would be allowed to install software on the workstations.
All you're doing is deploying the tools to random machines from random machines on the network rather than centralizing them at one location.
At the worst, you have more code installed on more machines doing a lot more scans yet not providing more data than the centralized system.
At best, you have you have more code on a couple random machines doing more scans yet not providing more data than the centralized system.
With a centralized system, you get all the benefits of your concept, without the negatives of random machines installing software on each other, all for the cost of a dedicated box. Given that you can pick up a really cheap box for $200 (USD) I don't see the value of your approach.
Having random workstations do the monitoring is useless because you won't have any benchmarks over time. Unless they send that data around to each other in which case you're using up your bandwidth. Or they could send the data to a dedicated machine to store it, but that gets back to the dedicated machine concept."tens of thousands of nodes" and you don't want to dedicate a single machine to this?
"tens of thousands of nodes" means a LOT of traffic with your proposal.But a worm will be able to do so?
Why not just take the code that the worm uses to monitor/manage those and incorporate it into the other Free apps?Is there a problem with syslog?
Again, if a worm can manage that environment, why not just use the management code from the worm in whatever Free tools you use?Again, why not use the code that the worm uses for that in the centralized tools?
Or are the worms going to constantly scan the network for new systems? How would you be able to tell your worm scans from illegitimate scans?
With a centralized system, you already know what machines should be scanning. Any other machines scanning should send up an alert.I don't. Not if you already control the machines and the network. Centralized management is far more efficient and reliable and managable.Again, a centralized management system would not have any problems with that.How? I can already scan their machines from the centralized system. I have control of their network. I should be able to diagram their systems without the worms.
Why not just run the centralized scanning tools that you mentioned?Why would I want to infect my switches and routers with this? I already have SNMP. Spanning tree kicks in almost instantaniously.The only way a worm would do that would be if it had infected the problem machine (in which case, why not just run a firewall on it) or if it had infected your switchs/routers.
Why not just write the app to run on those in the first place? Why make it a worm?What "expensive" tools?
All you'd need is SNMP and the knowledge to setup your firewall correctly and a machine to receive the syslog messages from your firewall and parse them.
It's far more efficient to have the choke points do the monitoring than to have worms running around on your network.
Worms are only useful for spreading crap to machines you don't control. Once you have control there are so many more efficient ways to push code to them or monitor them.
But that's not surprising given your background.No, if your earlier statement is correct, my statement cannot be inaccurate.
I guess they don't teach "logic" at that Sunday School you go to, eh?I'm sure that you'd like for that to be factual, but it isn't.
It's only people like you who want it to encompass anything and everyone who feel that it should be that way.
"Christianity" has the problem of only ONE real Christian and millions upon millions of people who will live their lives as they want and still claim to be "Christians".
When pressed for a definition of what a "Christian" is
#1. Includes your self and your actions
#2. Does not include individuals such as Satan or mass murders.
Which makes it damn amusing to watch you twist and turn and try to wriggle around the simple facts.Which would include Satan.
Great, you've managed to include the epitome of Sin in your definition.And so you've included the worst of the child rapers & murderers as being worthy of your "Heaven".
Oh, maybe you just aren't familiar with what Jesus said to his disciples on this matter?
James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
In fact, you should read through that entire section (and later, read the entire Bible). Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.
Go and click through on some of those extension links.
They ARE FireFox extensions. You can install them in FireFox today!
Which makes me wonder why they aren't making their "new features" as extensions to FireFox rather than claiming to be building a whole new browser.
I take it you cannot read? It's in the Bible. Or are you just opposed to reading the Bible?
So, what you're telling me is that Satan, the Angel of the Morning, known as Lucifer who was at the Hand of God would go to the personal effort of offering some kid all the cities of the world if that kid would worship him ... but would not know that kid was the Son of God.
Your defense is pure sophistry.
You can try to avoid the question all you want, but by your definition, Satan is a true Christian.
Oh spare me the martyr play. You are not the Christ. Get down off that cross.
Ummmm, the Bible? Have you heard of it? The New Testament if just filled with the teachings of this guy called "Jesus". Maybe you should try reading it sometime?
Or do you believe that if you lived your life as Jesus lived his that you would not be a "Christian".
Oops. Sorry, I forgot that even Satan qualifies as a "Christian" by your definition.
Given that, why is it so easy to score points off of you? The answers are already there in your Bible. All you have to do is read it.
Here, start at James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Hmmmm, it seems that Jesus taught a little bit differently than you believe.
Imagine that. A "Christian" who speaks the opposite of what the Christ taught and what is clearly written in the Bible. Will wonders never cease.
Uhhhhhh, this is a BASIC precept of the teachings of Jesus. You might want to look up that word "precept".
Is not God an "authority figure"?
Would he not be THE "authority figure"?
Again, that's covered in your Bible.
So you ARE stating that a "moral" choice can be contrary to the teachings of God/Jesus. Fascinating.
Yet on many occasions, Jesus specifically mentioned "good works" without mentioning faith as being required to be "saved". Check around, you can find them easily.
Other passages mention only faith.
If that statement offends you, then "Christian" does mean something to you, "in and of itself".Nope. Why don't you stop trying to guess what I really mean and just answer the question?Which is a tangent to the original question, but leads to the question of "So what is the requirement for being "saved"?"
Suppose there's some guy who likes raping and killing little girls. Is he "saved"?
If not, then how do you justify that with your statement that even horrible people leading horrible lives can be "saved"?
If so, then what is the final difference between someone leading a holy and pious life dedicated to aiding others and a guy who like to rape little girls and flay them alive?
Do they both get the same Heaven and the same amount of time (eternity) in it?
Would it be "moral" to support a god who grants eternal joy to a guy who rapes children?
If so, what exactly does "moral" mean?
If Christ taught that torture was wrong, that would be a teaching of Christ.
If someone follows the teachings of Christ, and knows Christ, then s/he is a "Christian".
If someone does not follow the teachings of Christ, but knows Christ, is s/he still a "Christian"? If so, then "Christian" would also apply to Satan.
If not, then how many of Christ's teachings can you ignore and still be a "Christian"?
The answer is easy, once you understand your own religion. Only those who do not understand will have a problem and get upset.
By your stated definition (belief being the only requirement for a "Christian"), Satan would be a "Christian".Are you saying that following Christ's teaching can be contrary to what your conscience tells you is "right" or "good"?
I can see that in the Old Testament, but Jesus' teachings weren't there.
Does that mean that, in certain circumstances, you can find yourself morally opposed to Jesus? The guy who died to forgive your sins? The guy who suffered so that you could have an eternity in Heaven?
Can a "Christian" be morally opposed to the teachings of Christ, the Son of God?
The same situation exists here. Sun is not legally bound to release any improvements back to the base, but can legally use any improvements that others provide to the base.That is what fragmentation is. One vendor chooses one path while a different chooses a different path.
Over time, the minor changes and improvements pile on until the two versions are not inter-changable anymore.
Yet each individual change/improvement/fix is insignificant and does not break compatibility.
We've seen this before and it happens again and again. It's always in the company's best interest to support the code base and the community
So if Sun fixes a bug, they don't have to release that fix to anyone.
So the bug will still exist in the base.
This is what leads to "fragmentation". Over time, the bug fixes and enhancements that are NOT released back to the base mean that the two versions (the base system and Sun's version) drift further and further apart until they become incompatible.
Software houses love the BSD-style licenses because it allows them to do that.
The GPL is useful in that it prevents such from happening. All bug fixes and such are released back to the base.
In the end, which is "better" depends upon your goals. Sun's goals are not the same as Linus'.
Ender's Game was real decent science fiction.
But then he got into FTL.
And an artificially intelligent (and emotional) Internet.
And living images of people only sustained by the thoughts of their creator.
Let's toss in some obsessive compulsive references.
And now we have instantanious travel.
Taken as itself, Ender's Game was a really good book.
Taken as a whole, the series is a good example of bad "Sci-Fi".
It's a fairly simple concept (sticking to Christian dogma).
... in which case the kind, loving, just God damns people he created and he place in an environment where they would not hear of his love or his son ...
#1. Either the only way to get into Heaven is to follow the "Christian" way
#2. or being "Christian" is not the only way to get into Heaven.
So if #1, then god is one sadistic bastard. Since god is obviously NOT a sadistic bastard (he is love and joy and life) then #2 must be the Truth.
But if #2 is the Truth, what are the statistics for non-Christians getting into Heaven? Is there a higher percentage of Native Americans pre-1500's in Heaven than pre-1500 Christians?
#2a. Are we wrecking those people's chances at an eternity of bliss because we're converting them? #2b. Or are we increasing the statistical likelyhood that they'll end up in Heaven?
At which point, the "Christians" usually cut and run. Native peoples are not really "people" like we're people. They're just walking, talking, 3-dimensional game counters. You get points if you "save" them, but they didn't really exist before you booted up the game. When the game isn't on, they go back in the box.
So, if someone does not follow the guidelines set forth by Jesus Christ, are they still followers of Jesus Christ (aka "Christians")?
Think about that before you answer it.
Is it "good" to torture someone who doesn't believe what you believe so that he might start believing what you believe?
If it is "simple" then you can give a "simple" yes/no answer to that.
If it is not "simple" then you will not be able to do so.
I predict that you will not be able to do so.
You are confusing "simple" with "simplistic".
After all, any amount of pain on Earth would surely be worth an eternity in Heaven, right?If it were "very coherent, and straight forward" then how could people get "so confused about it"?
That doesn't make sense. If something is simple, there is no confusion. Confusion only comes from complexity.And if someone does NOT believe that they are "bad" by you definition, then it is okay for you to do anything (up to murder) to convince them that they ARE "bad" and that they need to accept YOUR religion so they can live in Heaven.
Yes, Christianity was used to justify slavery and even beating slaves. And by your current definition, those would be "good" Christians (even though they were "bad" people with regard to sin).No, "the rest" is all about what is allowable to be done to the non-Christians to get them into Heaven.