I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him. Personally, I feel that the election was close enough that it could have gone the other way had the media been fair.
Do not start talking about "fair" without also addressing those purges.
And from TFA:
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786.
So you're talking about a difference of 160 stories. Over almost a year. Let's just call it a year. That means we're talking about a difference of less than 1 story every two days.
Meanwhile, McCain's 786 stories equates to just over 2 stories every day for a year.
Compared to Obama's 946 which equates to... just over 2 stories every day for a year.
But every THIRD day, Obama would get THREE stories and McCain would only get TWO stories.
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views.
That's not "a pretty large liberal bias".
That is the Washington Post focusing on the easiest stories to "write". The ones that don't require any research. The ones that don't require any knowledge of the issues.
#1. The ISP blocks all outgoing port 25 connections. We've been over this one before. It means more expenses for the ISP so they're not going to do it unless they are forced to do it through law.
#2. The vigilante approach of writing a "virus" that identifies and infects infected computers... and then removes the existing infection, downloads updates, installs a silent anti-virus app and checks back in at regular intervals for updates. The problem with that is that the people who do it become "criminals" under US law.
Because you'll be p0wn3d in no time. Trust what? AV libraries are mostly behind the times and can't smell subtle variations.
That's what I said. While there isn't an infinite number of variations, there are far more variations possible than there are known good bits.
So do NOT try to solve this problem by matching "bad" patterns.
Match known good patterns and quarantine everything else.
Getting disinfected doesn't necessarily work, either. Usually the initial infection vector still exists (the hapless user).
The user will ALWAYS be the weakest link. As the article I linked to stated, if education could work, it would have worked by now.
Instead, focus on building systems that MINIMIZE the vulnerability and that make it EASY to RECOVER when it is cracked.
Quarantining code is folly.
That's your opinion. I can show that it does work.
Active and varied defenses and re-writes and restores to RO media help.
Huh? How about some specifics? Because that isn't making sense to me.
I scape so much crap from friends and relatives machines that I've got BartsCD built for most of them. I just re-write the registry after active scans, and re-write kernel, vmm, browser crap.
How do you "re-write the registry"?
Instead, imagine an anti-virus system that refuses to allow code to be installed in they system directories (or registered) unless it matches the checksums, names, etc on a list of known good apps. Then it just becomes a issue of keeping that list updated with the latest patches and upgrades.
Instead of downloading the daily list of suspected BAD patterns, you'd be downloading a list of known good patterns. And that would only need to be updated prior to something being installed on the system.
For a business looking to manage thousands of PC's... all with the same basic apps and patch levels and such... this would be so much easier than trying to maintain the current anti-virus system (engine upgrades, signature upgrades). Nothing would be installed that was not pre-approved by their department.
Why bother with anti-virus for the system itself? (Note: anti-virus is acceptable for mail servers or file servers.)
Instead, why not focus on identifying the known good code... and quarantining anything else?
Maybe there aren't an infinite number of ways to obfuscate code (eventually your obfuscation would exceed the capacity of the local hard drive) but there are FAR more ways to obfuscate code so it bypasses the anti-virus scanners than there are bits of known good code.
I should be able to boot from some form of rescue CD with a HUGE list of filenames, checksums, etc... and what application they are associated with... and validate every single file on a workstation. And then quarantine everything else so it can be manually verified.
There, even if you get infected, the disinfection is simple AND effective.
Let's be serious here. IF we were really making progress in Iraq then the situation would be improving. At a certain point, it would have improved enough for us to leave.
We took out their previous government and replaced it. We disbanded their army.
The criteria of "winning" the occupation seem to keep changing.
And without clear criteria, you'll never know if you have "won" or even if you're getting closer to "winning".
Not to mention our continuing strategy of treating the occupation as if it was still an invasion. We're using air strikes on buildings instead of arresting criminals.
This is added incentive to complete YOUR testing of this patch ASAP.
Remember, only incompetent admins apply patches without testing them.
In our environment, the patch would have been put into testing the day after it was released (no sense getting caught by a brown paper bag bug) and then into production NEXT Sunday.
With a known exploit out there, we'd be getting more people to test the test systems TODAY. With the goal of putting the patch into production TOMORROW evening.
The first is a new feature called HomeGroup. This essentially turns all the Windows 7 PCs on the home network into a combined pool of data and files, much like a Windows Home Server or a NAS appliance.
...and...
However, H.264, DivX and AVCHD are, which certainly broadens the range of videos that can be streamed from PC to PC across your home network.
Now, the real question is how easily it will be to NOT share particular folders and files.
... but not to big to have their CxO's doing some jail time for supporting that.
If nothing happens then those same people are just going to find ANOTHER dodge to exploit. Just like the Savings and Loan debacle.
There will always be SOMETHING that can exploited. Close the loopholes... but also jail and fine the people who orchestrated this. And every other exploit.
RAID won't save your data if there is a fire. Or if you delete a file. Or if two drives fail. Or a thousand other scenarios.
All RAID does is prevent the system from going down when a single drive fails (except RAID 0). Thus giving everyone in the office time to finish up their important work and log out for the day so you can swap the drive. Or, if you're brave, swap the drive during regular work hours.
For the home user (not working on huge graphic files) RAID 1 (mirroring) should be sufficient. As long as it is paired with another EXTERNAL hard drive that you copy your important information to. And leave with your brother or something. I'm talking family photos and such. Your tax information should be small enough to fit on a USB drive.
If your computer completely failed TODAY what would be the really irreplaceable files on it?
Back those up. Then store them with a friend or someone in your family.
They want a system that SHARES the available resource (bandwidth in this case)... but that allows each machine on it to behave as if it had EXCLUSIVE access to that resource.
And they want to base that system off of a technology that evolved from a concept based upon COLLISIONS.
And the reason they want to do that is... because that old technology is ubiquitous.
Not because it is well suited to their needs. Not because it is inexpensive to modify. Not for any good technological reason.
But because everyone already has it.
So they want to make networks more expensive for EVERYONE so that they THEY can sell their products for less.
The problem with planets is that they're always too far out, too far in, too big, too small or too much work to clean up (terraform).
And if you have the kind of tech to fix those first four problems then it's easier to just break them up and rebuild them as a series of space stations.
Yes, maybe a lot of civilizations wouldn't have expansionist goals, but it only takes one.
The problem is that the people like you with that argument do not address the realities of inter-stellar travel.
Yes, it only takes one. But that one MUST have started MILLIONS of years ago... and stayed DEDICATED to the task... for MILLIONS of years... AND SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF INTER-STELLAR TRAVEL.
Rather, it is more likely that (as we did) they will expand a bit... then they will find other things to spend their time and money on.
And yes, in this case, absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence.
Because a species of intelligent dolphins would surely be detectable from their radio transmissions.
No. That entire line of thought is based upon the incorrect assumption that WE are the model for all other species.
We're almost unique on Earth. Where we share DNA with every other animal. Why expect that from creatures who evolved on a different world?
Not to mention the incredibly SHORT time we've been looking over an incredibly SMALL portion of the galaxy.
Your entire argument is based upon another species developing the exact same technology that we have... and using it in a fashion we can detect... far enough in the past... but not too far in the past... so that we can detect it... using the technology we have... during the time we have been trying to detect it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a personal account of an election worker in Iowa dealing with voter "purges":
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/10/precinct_elections_official/
Do not start talking about "fair" without also addressing those purges.
And from TFA:
So you're talking about a difference of 160 stories. Over almost a year. Let's just call it a year. That means we're talking about a difference of less than 1 story every two days.
Meanwhile, McCain's 786 stories equates to just over 2 stories every day for a year.
Compared to Obama's 946 which equates to ... just over 2 stories every day for a year.
But every THIRD day, Obama would get THREE stories and McCain would only get TWO stories.
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
That's not "a pretty large liberal bias".
That is the Washington Post focusing on the easiest stories to "write". The ones that don't require any research. The ones that don't require any knowledge of the issues.
#1. The ISP blocks all outgoing port 25 connections. We've been over this one before. It means more expenses for the ISP so they're not going to do it unless they are forced to do it through law.
#2. The vigilante approach of writing a "virus" that identifies and infects infected computers ... and then removes the existing infection, downloads updates, installs a silent anti-virus app and checks back in at regular intervals for updates. The problem with that is that the people who do it become "criminals" under US law.
So your plan would result in Joe Sixpack getting a bill for email that he claims he didn't send.
And he would be correct. He would not have sent it. His machine would have. While it was a zombie.
No? How about this?
No? Maybe this?
No? What about this?
As opposed to:
Here's everything that matches what you've typed so far.
On Windows, tabbed completion grabs the FIRST entry that matches.
On Linux, tabbed completion lists ALL the entries that match.
Here's looking forward to your second centennial!
So the various Congress Critters would all agree to vote "yes" for pay raises ... except for one who would vote "no".
Then, while campaigning, they can ALL claim to have voted against it.
And so on with every important issue.
That's what I said. While there isn't an infinite number of variations, there are far more variations possible than there are known good bits.
So do NOT try to solve this problem by matching "bad" patterns.
Match known good patterns and quarantine everything else.
The user will ALWAYS be the weakest link. As the article I linked to stated, if education could work, it would have worked by now.
Instead, focus on building systems that MINIMIZE the vulnerability and that make it EASY to RECOVER when it is cracked.
That's your opinion. I can show that it does work.
Huh? How about some specifics? Because that isn't making sense to me.
How do you "re-write the registry"?
Instead, imagine an anti-virus system that refuses to allow code to be installed in they system directories (or registered) unless it matches the checksums, names, etc on a list of known good apps. Then it just becomes a issue of keeping that list updated with the latest patches and upgrades.
Instead of downloading the daily list of suspected BAD patterns, you'd be downloading a list of known good patterns. And that would only need to be updated prior to something being installed on the system.
For a business looking to manage thousands of PC's ... all with the same basic apps and patch levels and such ... this would be so much easier than trying to maintain the current anti-virus system (engine upgrades, signature upgrades). Nothing would be installed that was not pre-approved by their department.
http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/index.html
Why bother with anti-virus for the system itself? (Note: anti-virus is acceptable for mail servers or file servers.)
Instead, why not focus on identifying the known good code ... and quarantining anything else?
Maybe there aren't an infinite number of ways to obfuscate code (eventually your obfuscation would exceed the capacity of the local hard drive) but there are FAR more ways to obfuscate code so it bypasses the anti-virus scanners than there are bits of known good code.
I should be able to boot from some form of rescue CD with a HUGE list of filenames, checksums, etc ... and what application they are associated with ... and validate every single file on a workstation. And then quarantine everything else so it can be manually verified.
There, even if you get infected, the disinfection is simple AND effective.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080509.jpg
Let's be serious here. IF we were really making progress in Iraq then the situation would be improving. At a certain point, it would have improved enough for us to leave.
How many years is that going to take? Why?
Otherwise admit that we aren't making progress.
We took out their previous government and replaced it. We disbanded their army.
The criteria of "winning" the occupation seem to keep changing.
And without clear criteria, you'll never know if you have "won" or even if you're getting closer to "winning".
Not to mention our continuing strategy of treating the occupation as if it was still an invasion. We're using air strikes on buildings instead of arresting criminals.
This is added incentive to complete YOUR testing of this patch ASAP.
Remember, only incompetent admins apply patches without testing them.
In our environment, the patch would have been put into testing the day after it was released (no sense getting caught by a brown paper bag bug) and then into production NEXT Sunday.
With a known exploit out there, we'd be getting more people to test the test systems TODAY. With the goal of putting the patch into production TOMORROW evening.
From TFA:
Now, the real question is how easily it will be to NOT share particular folders and files.
#1. As you mentioned, you need to unmount a partition to modify it.
#2. "...the garbage the LiveCD left on your drive."
But the LiveCD does not leave anything on your drive.
#3. "...because the liveCD requires the NTFS partition to be mounted..."
But the LiveCD does not require that any partitions be mounted.
I think that it was just a troll and one of the moderators did not know any better and mod'ed it up.
... but not to big to have their CxO's doing some jail time for supporting that.
If nothing happens then those same people are just going to find ANOTHER dodge to exploit. Just like the Savings and Loan debacle.
There will always be SOMETHING that can exploited. Close the loopholes ... but also jail and fine the people who orchestrated this. And every other exploit.
I'm just amazed that a criminal organization would file a legal TRADEMARK.
Seriously. Were they going to SUE someone for infringement?
And a polygraph?
Man, biker gangs have certainly changed since I was a kid.
You wearing the wrong colors! Man, you goin' be facing a' injunction! We gots badass LAWYERS who be totally down with dat state bar stuf!
Spell it out for everyone.
RAID won't save your data if there is a fire.
Or if you delete a file.
Or if two drives fail.
Or a thousand other scenarios.
All RAID does is prevent the system from going down when a single drive fails (except RAID 0). Thus giving everyone in the office time to finish up their important work and log out for the day so you can swap the drive. Or, if you're brave, swap the drive during regular work hours.
For the home user (not working on huge graphic files) RAID 1 (mirroring) should be sufficient. As long as it is paired with another EXTERNAL hard drive that you copy your important information to. And leave with your brother or something. I'm talking family photos and such. Your tax information should be small enough to fit on a USB drive.
If your computer completely failed TODAY what would be the really irreplaceable files on it?
Back those up. Then store them with a friend or someone in your family.
There, problem solved.
They want a system that SHARES the available resource (bandwidth in this case) ... but that allows each machine on it to behave as if it had EXCLUSIVE access to that resource.
And they want to base that system off of a technology that evolved from a concept based upon COLLISIONS.
And the reason they want to do that is ... because that old technology is ubiquitous.
Not because it is well suited to their needs. Not because it is inexpensive to modify. Not for any good technological reason.
But because everyone already has it.
So they want to make networks more expensive for EVERYONE so that they THEY can sell their products for less.
Fuck that.
And to make it easy we could call it "TokenRing".
Or maybe a token passing bus! Maybe call it "ARCnet".
Seriously, if there are problems with Ethernet ... for the usage you envision ... don't try to change Ethernet.
You take the parts you want from Ethernet and you create a NEW standard with the other features you want.
But you leave Ethernet as Ethernet. That way there is no confusion.
The problem with planets is that they're always too far out, too far in, too big, too small or too much work to clean up (terraform).
And if you have the kind of tech to fix those first four problems then it's easier to just break them up and rebuild them as a series of space stations.
The problem is that the people like you with that argument do not address the realities of inter-stellar travel.
Yes, it only takes one. But that one MUST have started MILLIONS of years ago ... and stayed DEDICATED to the task ... for MILLIONS of years ... AND SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF INTER-STELLAR TRAVEL.
Rather, it is more likely that (as we did) they will expand a bit ... then they will find other things to spend their time and money on.
Because a species of intelligent dolphins would surely be detectable from their radio transmissions.
No. That entire line of thought is based upon the incorrect assumption that WE are the model for all other species.
We're almost unique on Earth. Where we share DNA with every other animal. Why expect that from creatures who evolved on a different world?
Not to mention the incredibly SHORT time we've been looking over an incredibly SMALL portion of the galaxy.
Your entire argument is based upon another species developing the exact same technology that we have ... and using it in a fashion we can detect ... far enough in the past ... but not too far in the past ... so that we can detect it ... using the technology we have ... during the time we have been trying to detect it.
Yeah, like that "proves" anything.
To get the fans who MUST watch everything under that name ... because they fell in love with something in a previous series / movie / cartoon / book?
So why complain when those same fans complain that X doesn't match the way it was depicted in Y?
If the movie is good enough on its own, then the complaints will be minor nit-picks.