Can't do Linux? Download it and learn yourself. Anything less is just excuses.
That is easy to say, but I'm not so sure it is fair. Just installing a Linux desktop or mock server is nothing compared to actually running an maintaining a production system. Sure, you can learn the basics, but you're not going to be proficient (and get good uptimes) until you've had real world problems/issues to deal with. Especially if the Windows admin is too young to have much DOS/CLI experience.
It helps to have some minor function you can put your first Linux server in. I was fortunate enough to start my Linux "career" at a community college setting in 1997 where uptime was not a high priority. I originally got a Linux box running as a router between a token ring and ethernet networks. And i was able to install a semi-private Linux mail server. I also ran a MUD. Eventually I was confident enough to actually setup a real server... and the rest is history.
b) War is between two parties. Not necessarily two states.
Try quoting what I actually said. I said war is between two states or groups.
So you're wrong in your implication, and wrong in your statement. Go back to school.
I was quite correct on both counts. Even you agree that war is between two parties. And by that definition, "war on terror" is at least misnomer if not a manipulative lie.
It's a pity that Microsoft don't produce a bootable image with a version of MSDOS containing a basic NTFS filesystem driver and some automated tools to do all of the above. It's technically possible.
Technically possible, but severely limited. Who wants to waste time coding DOS utilities? What is really needed is a useful Windows LiveCD with Windows programs to clean a Windows systems. Even then, i think you underestimate how sneaky malware can be. "Cleansing the registry thoroughly" would require that you can programatically differentiate between malware and legitimate user installed software/DLLs. And even after you clean the system, you can not guarantee that is will run properly.
I think it is traditionally MUCH easier to boot a Mac from various media than it is to make Windows bootable. I've heard that there are projects to make Windows "LiveCDs," but that is a lot of work.
There could also be licensing issues. Maybe companies like Symantec are prohibited from either distributing bootable media (Windows, not DOS) or making one from the user's existing installation.
What you end up with are lame DOS boot disks which are not very powerful.
based on older communication norms and don't take into account any 'war-time necessity' arguments.
First thing we need to do is dispell this lie that there is some kind of "war on terror" going on because you just can't argue agains "war-time necessity." The government is going to get whatever they want as long as they are permitted to invoke "war" as the justifications. There is no "war on terrorism." Terrorism is a tactic. Having a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as having a war on amphibious assaults. If anything, we're at war in Iraq with insurgents in Iraq. But even that scarcely qualifies as war.
While we are at it, there is no war on drugs either. Let's get that out of the way right now. War is between two states or groups of people... not between a state and a noun.
Each device would need a unique channel and each device would need to be able to transmit the total distance bbetween any two phones. And that just makes wiretapping easier. For everyone, not just the NSA. Really, the simple answer to wiretapping is just encrypted VoIP. And if you want wireless, use a WiFi phone.
The car analogy is not a very good one because there is a very significant, perceptable difference between a luxury car and a small Honda (or similar). I drive a Hyndai Elantra, and I sometimes forget how differnt a luxury car feels just sitting in it. Leather seats, big engine, etc. Luxury cars just feel more 'solid.' And then, of course, there is the "status" factor. All in all though, I still won't for the difference. I like my little used Hyndai.:-)
With certs, there really is no difference between an expensive cert and a cheap one. Very, very few people care who signed your cert. So there isn't even the "status" factore. Anyone who would rather pay $500 vs. $25 for a cert is just a fool.
3) "Cert CA isn't trusted." This is the error the author of the parent comment suggests you "teach" your users to click through. If you like individually trusting certs, this is probably the most "harmless" (assuming you manually validate the fingerprint, etc.), but that type of thing is beyond the reach of the average user. In any case, this message suggests to users that your web site has a security problem.
No, the grandparent is suggesting that you find the cheapest signer that is trusted by browsers. You can pay $500 (or whatever it is now) from Verisign or $25 from Bob's Discount Browser Trusted Certs. The user won't know the difference. Check out the list of trusted signers in your browser. It is pretty big. Most of those are fair candidates for a signer. Choose the cheapest.
At the end of the day, does it really matter? No, no-one knows the the difference between high and low, but a person does actually have to do something.
Yeah, someone has to sit there in front of the fax machine waiting for the ultra-secure signed letterheads to come in.
Since I don't have mod points, I will simply support this statement. Cost, cost, cost! Man, I can't believe what some of the big names are charging to put their little stamp of approval on a cert. Ok, *maybe* they do a little legwork to ensure that the person requesting the cert is who he says he is, but as the parent pointed out, that doesn't matter to you. You know you are who you say you are. So just pick the cheapest signer.
Anyone know if there has a business card/netinst ISO? I always liked how I didn't have to download a whole Debian ISO to install. I could just get the base install and the the rest over the net with apt-get. I never was much for selecting everything I want all at once. I like to install ONLY what I need, as I need it.
I can't help but think that Apple's Mac OS X meets all of these. Besides being proprietary, what exactly about Mac OS X is not "nearly as effectiv[e]" compared to these four Linux distributions? Why would you think that any of these criteria are mutually exclusive?
My experience is that OS X servers are not rock-solid dependable. Unless you have a Network full of OS X clients and want all the OpenDirectory Apple management nicities, OS X does not make a great server, IME. It is also a little on the slow side. Good desktop though.
Not to take the wind out of the Ubuntu sails or anything, but such upgradability has been a feature of Debian for a long time now. Ubuntu just inheritted it. I have a Debian desktop that was once installed 8 years ago with Debian 1.2 or something like that and through the years it has been upgraded from one stable release to the next (and sometime unstable/testing). The HD was also moved into faster boxes.
I didn't note any hypebole at all in the article. Sounds like everyone involved has an appropriate amount of skepticism. The one thing that makes it unlikely that this is a case of an as yet undiscovered bacteria is that these red cells don't seem to contain DNA. All life on Earth has DNA as far as we know. If this proves to be life without DNA, that is good evidence that it is not from Earth. Not proof, but certainly evidence.
1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border.
But the fact is that there are people here illegally and they will continue to come. You might decrease the numbers a bit, but you create an even bigger problem of people needing welfare-like support while they try to figure out what the hell they are goign to do now that they are here since they can't work.
This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.
In spirit, it does. On one hand you are saying that some able-bodied (illegal) people are ineligable for work and then you say they are ineligable for welfare services as well. I think I would rather encourage people to work, even if they are illegal, than leave them out in the cold.
Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.
This probably would have disqualified many of your (and mine for sure) ancestors. Immigrants tend to form communities where they can work and be productive without needing to speak English. Eventually they will probably learn English, but they need time to adjust, find work, and otherwise establish themselves. Adding a language requirement just makes the whole process more daunting.
If nothing else, it would be pretty interesting. I don't know that I have ever heard of a geographic group fighting to stay IN a union/empire after being kicked out.
Easy. They apply for citizenship and wait in line just like everyone else who is doing it the correct way. If they can't wait then too f'ing bad.
It doesn't work that way. You don't just apply for citizenship and "wait." The fact that you would even suggest that shows you know nothing about immigration law.
A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.
I know. That is the problem. We should just take it down (the poem, if not the statue iteself). It no longer applies. That is my point.
Look, I'm not saying we should necessarily let in everyone and anyone who wants in. I'm just saying we should be honest about it and not pretend that anyone can get in if they just wait or go through the correct channels. There IS a filter. And it DOES discriminate against the poor. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy.
Yes, I see what they are doing. They are screwing themselves in the long run by forcing those who are willing and able to work to leave.
I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.
Indeed, it'll proably leave the whole country worse off.
If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.
But the immigration laws are setup to create welfare abuse. There is often no way for hard working Mexicans to get legal work visas. So they get stuck working for peanuts... if that. I don't think very many Mexicans come here PLANNING to abuse welfare. They come here for opportunity. Do you think living on welfare is FUN? Do you think that is something that people strive for?
Really? My college dropout former receptionist black African wife who just started working in this country four years after her arrival would beg to differ with that. People talk a lot of crap that don't know any better. They think it's nearly impossible to enter this country legally. Guess what? It's not! It just takes longer. You may have to wait several years. You'll need a sponsor (common sense, really... someone that will take financial responsibility for you if you can't support yourself rather than being a burden to society).
And if you don't have a sponser? Lets say you are just some average, poor Mexican. Who is going to sponser you?
Yes, it takes longer, it costs money, and the paperwork is a pain, but it really isn't that hard, and I mean, if you really, really want to be here legally, you should be motivated enough to file the paperwork.
You can file all the paperwork you want, but without a work visa, you're not going to get a (legal) job. And without a (legal) job, you're not going to become a citizen.
The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.
And how, excactly, is a poor Mexican supposed to naturalize "in the traditional sense of the word?" Can you explain this process? Can you describe how a poor Mexican can realistically follow this process without getting deported? They can't, usually. The laws have been setup to discriminate against the very people that the US supposedly welcomes. "Give us your poor, tired, huddled masses," my ass.
The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US.
Too f'ing bad. They are free to send their hard earned money wherever they want. You can't discriminate against them for that.
Immigration laws have been put into effect to allow the poor, tired masses to come to the US for a better life. People subverting those laws and hopping the border are just common criminals and deserve no better treatment than the guy who steals from the drugstore/convenience store/insert store here.
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get into (and stay in) the country legally if you don't have high skills/education and don't have a job waiting for you? That whole thing about "give us your tired, poor, huddled masses..." is a lie. Those people are trying to get in and people like you don't want them. Not only do you not want them, but you want to treat them like criminals for trying. Two faced liars like you piss me off. The least you could do is be honest about it and say "No immigrants... except for highly educated white people."
Slashdot Mirror
Can't do Linux? Download it and learn yourself. Anything less is just excuses.
That is easy to say, but I'm not so sure it is fair. Just installing a Linux desktop or mock server is nothing compared to actually running an maintaining a production system. Sure, you can learn the basics, but you're not going to be proficient (and get good uptimes) until you've had real world problems/issues to deal with. Especially if the Windows admin is too young to have much DOS/CLI experience.
It helps to have some minor function you can put your first Linux server in. I was fortunate enough to start my Linux "career" at a community college setting in 1997 where uptime was not a high priority. I originally got a Linux box running as a router between a token ring and ethernet networks. And i was able to install a semi-private Linux mail server. I also ran a MUD. Eventually I was confident enough to actually setup a real server... and the rest is history.
-matthew
b) War is between two parties. Not necessarily two states.
Try quoting what I actually said. I said war is between two states or groups.
So you're wrong in your implication, and wrong in your statement. Go back to school.
I was quite correct on both counts. Even you agree that war is between two parties. And by that definition, "war on terror" is at least misnomer if not a manipulative lie.
-matthew
It's a pity that Microsoft don't produce a bootable image with a version of MSDOS containing a basic NTFS filesystem driver and some automated tools to do all of the above. It's technically possible.
Technically possible, but severely limited. Who wants to waste time coding DOS utilities? What is really needed is a useful Windows LiveCD with Windows programs to clean a Windows systems. Even then, i think you underestimate how sneaky malware can be. "Cleansing the registry thoroughly" would require that you can programatically differentiate between malware and legitimate user installed software/DLLs. And even after you clean the system, you can not guarantee that is will run properly.
-matthew
I think it is traditionally MUCH easier to boot a Mac from various media than it is to make Windows bootable. I've heard that there are projects to make Windows "LiveCDs," but that is a lot of work.
There could also be licensing issues. Maybe companies like Symantec are prohibited from either distributing bootable media (Windows, not DOS) or making one from the user's existing installation.
What you end up with are lame DOS boot disks which are not very powerful.
based on older communication norms and don't take into account any 'war-time necessity' arguments.
First thing we need to do is dispell this lie that there is some kind of "war on terror" going on because you just can't argue agains "war-time necessity." The government is going to get whatever they want as long as they are permitted to invoke "war" as the justifications. There is no "war on terrorism." Terrorism is a tactic. Having a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as having a war on amphibious assaults. If anything, we're at war in Iraq with insurgents in Iraq. But even that scarcely qualifies as war.
While we are at it, there is no war on drugs either. Let's get that out of the way right now. War is between two states or groups of people... not between a state and a noun.
-matthew
Each device would need a unique channel and each device would need to be able to transmit the total distance bbetween any two phones. And that just makes wiretapping easier. For everyone, not just the NSA. Really, the simple answer to wiretapping is just encrypted VoIP. And if you want wireless, use a WiFi phone.
-matthew
The car analogy is not a very good one because there is a very significant, perceptable difference between a luxury car and a small Honda (or similar). I drive a Hyndai Elantra, and I sometimes forget how differnt a luxury car feels just sitting in it. Leather seats, big engine, etc. Luxury cars just feel more 'solid.' And then, of course, there is the "status" factor. All in all though, I still won't for the difference. I like my little used Hyndai. :-)
With certs, there really is no difference between an expensive cert and a cheap one. Very, very few people care who signed your cert. So there isn't even the "status" factore. Anyone who would rather pay $500 vs. $25 for a cert is just a fool.
-matthew
3) "Cert CA isn't trusted." This is the error the author of the parent comment suggests you "teach" your users to click through. If you like individually trusting certs, this is probably the most "harmless" (assuming you manually validate the fingerprint, etc.), but that type of thing is beyond the reach of the average user. In any case, this message suggests to users that your web site has a security problem.
No, the grandparent is suggesting that you find the cheapest signer that is trusted by browsers. You can pay $500 (or whatever it is now) from Verisign or $25 from Bob's Discount Browser Trusted Certs. The user won't know the difference. Check out the list of trusted signers in your browser. It is pretty big. Most of those are fair candidates for a signer. Choose the cheapest.
-matthew
At the end of the day, does it really matter?
No, no-one knows the the difference between high and low, but a person does actually have to do something.
Yeah, someone has to sit there in front of the fax machine waiting for the ultra-secure signed letterheads to come in.
-matthew
Since I don't have mod points, I will simply support this statement. Cost, cost, cost! Man, I can't believe what some of the big names are charging to put their little stamp of approval on a cert. Ok, *maybe* they do a little legwork to ensure that the person requesting the cert is who he says he is, but as the parent pointed out, that doesn't matter to you. You know you are who you say you are. So just pick the cheapest signer.
-matthew
Off the top of my head: 1.2 -> 2.0 -> 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.1
-matthew
Anyone know if there has a business card/netinst ISO? I always liked how I didn't have to download a whole Debian ISO to install. I could just get the base install and the the rest over the net with apt-get. I never was much for selecting everything I want all at once. I like to install ONLY what I need, as I need it.
-matthew
I can't help but think that Apple's Mac OS X meets all of these. Besides being proprietary, what exactly about Mac OS X is not "nearly as effectiv[e]" compared to these four Linux distributions? Why would you think that any of these criteria are mutually exclusive?
My experience is that OS X servers are not rock-solid dependable. Unless you have a Network full of OS X clients and want all the OpenDirectory Apple management nicities, OS X does not make a great server, IME. It is also a little on the slow side. Good desktop though.
-matthew
Not to take the wind out of the Ubuntu sails or anything, but such upgradability has been a feature of Debian for a long time now. Ubuntu just inheritted it. I have a Debian desktop that was once installed 8 years ago with Debian 1.2 or something like that and through the years it has been upgraded from one stable release to the next (and sometime unstable/testing). The HD was also moved into faster boxes.
-matthew
I didn't note any hypebole at all in the article. Sounds like everyone involved has an appropriate amount of skepticism. The one thing that makes it unlikely that this is a case of an as yet undiscovered bacteria is that these red cells don't seem to contain DNA. All life on Earth has DNA as far as we know. If this proves to be life without DNA, that is good evidence that it is not from Earth. Not proof, but certainly evidence.
-matthew
So has anyone checked to see how the "cells" the weren't collected are doing in the wild? Do they multiply there? Turn whole lakes red?
-matthew
1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border.
But the fact is that there are people here illegally and they will continue to come. You might decrease the numbers a bit, but you create an even bigger problem of people needing welfare-like support while they try to figure out what the hell they are goign to do now that they are here since they can't work.
This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.
In spirit, it does. On one hand you are saying that some able-bodied (illegal) people are ineligable for work and then you say they are ineligable for welfare services as well. I think I would rather encourage people to work, even if they are illegal, than leave them out in the cold.
Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.
This probably would have disqualified many of your (and mine for sure) ancestors. Immigrants tend to form communities where they can work and be productive without needing to speak English. Eventually they will probably learn English, but they need time to adjust, find work, and otherwise establish themselves. Adding a language requirement just makes the whole process more daunting.
-matthew
Couple problems:
1. Enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring those ineligible to work in this country.
Question is, why should a person be ineligible for work if they can, physically, work? You're just creating welfare/homeless cases for no good reason.
2. Curtail welfare to the point that able-bodied people are not eligible.
This conflicts with the first part where able-bodied people are denied eligability to work.
4. Adjust permanent resident visa standards to include:
a. Minimal English proficiency.
What is "minimal?"
b. Relinquishing all claims to citizenship or residency in any other country.
Great, so if things don't work out here, they have no place to go.
c. A spotless criminal record.
Easy to say, but what if the country someone is coming from doesn't have the same standards for "criminal" that we do?
-matthew
If nothing else, it would be pretty interesting. I don't know that I have ever heard of a geographic group fighting to stay IN a union/empire after being kicked out.
-matthew
Easy. They apply for citizenship and wait in line just like everyone else who is doing it the correct way. If they can't wait then too f'ing bad.
It doesn't work that way. You don't just apply for citizenship and "wait." The fact that you would even suggest that shows you know nothing about immigration law.
-matthew
A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.
I know. That is the problem. We should just take it down (the poem, if not the statue iteself). It no longer applies. That is my point.
Look, I'm not saying we should necessarily let in everyone and anyone who wants in. I'm just saying we should be honest about it and not pretend that anyone can get in if they just wait or go through the correct channels. There IS a filter. And it DOES discriminate against the poor. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy.
Yes, I see what they are doing. They are screwing themselves in the long run by forcing those who are willing and able to work to leave.
I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.
Indeed, it'll proably leave the whole country worse off.
If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.
But the immigration laws are setup to create welfare abuse. There is often no way for hard working Mexicans to get legal work visas. So they get stuck working for peanuts... if that. I don't think very many Mexicans come here PLANNING to abuse welfare. They come here for opportunity. Do you think living on welfare is FUN? Do you think that is something that people strive for?
-matthew
Really? My college dropout former receptionist black African wife who just started working in this country four years after her arrival would beg to differ with that. People talk a lot of crap that don't know any better. They think it's nearly impossible to enter this country legally. Guess what? It's not! It just takes longer. You may have to wait several years. You'll need a sponsor (common sense, really... someone that will take financial responsibility for you if you can't support yourself rather than being a burden to society).
And if you don't have a sponser? Lets say you are just some average, poor Mexican. Who is going to sponser you?
Yes, it takes longer, it costs money, and the paperwork is a pain, but it really isn't that hard, and I mean, if you really, really want to be here legally, you should be motivated enough to file the paperwork.
You can file all the paperwork you want, but without a work visa, you're not going to get a (legal) job. And without a (legal) job, you're not going to become a citizen.
-matthew
Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.
I know. That is one of the reasons to give up Texas.
-matthew
The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.
And how, excactly, is a poor Mexican supposed to naturalize "in the traditional sense of the word?" Can you explain this process? Can you describe how a poor Mexican can realistically follow this process without getting deported? They can't, usually. The laws have been setup to discriminate against the very people that the US supposedly welcomes. "Give us your poor, tired, huddled masses," my ass.
The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US.
Too f'ing bad. They are free to send their hard earned money wherever they want. You can't discriminate against them for that.
-matthew
Immigration laws have been put into effect to allow the poor, tired masses to come to the US for a better life. People subverting those laws and hopping the border are just common criminals and deserve no better treatment than the guy who steals from the drugstore/convenience store/insert store here.
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get into (and stay in) the country legally if you don't have high skills/education and don't have a job waiting for you? That whole thing about "give us your tired, poor, huddled masses..." is a lie. Those people are trying to get in and people like you don't want them. Not only do you not want them, but you want to treat them like criminals for trying. Two faced liars like you piss me off. The least you could do is be honest about it and say "No immigrants... except for highly educated white people."
-matthew