If you don't have the unstable keyword (e.g. ~x86) or have any bleeding edge compile options set and you have a competent sysadmin it can be used fine on a production server.
It is not unreliable unless you make it so.
Yes, you need a more clueful sysadmin than someone who can just point an click with Red Hat.
But if your sysadmin can't handle the complexity of Gentoo he shouldn't be a sysadmin of a system which needs to be reliable at all - he should just get a MSCE and go do Windows support.
Would you feel comfortable writing a PDF reader in the USA?
There are still patents, copyrighted interfaces, trademarks, DRM issues (if the PDF has a do-not-copy flag set and your software ignores it - trouble!), etc, etc.
I looked it up and I still see no way party A can sign something or agree to something with party B in such a way as to make party C bound by the agreement.
You can't bind 3rd parties to an agreement (unless perhaps they made an agreement with you which would let you do that).
Just who is the "Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)", under what statuatory authority (if any) do they have to mandate two factor authentication and what penalties will there be if a bank allows customers to continue to use a userid and password alone.
Userid and password is simple, and effective in most cases.
The Feds want more security here, yet if I ask my bank to only accept ACTUAL PHYSICAL checks with my signature on them before honoring them and paying the other banks, it is ILLEGAL for my bank to give me what I want and refuse to accept a "substitute check". It is ILLEGAL for a bank to insist on security which would go a long way towards stopping check fraud, something which I can't protect against.
Whereas phishing attacks require stupidity on the part of the user.
Why protect people from seomthing they can protect themselves against, yet not protect us from something we can't protect ourselves from (people can forge our signature, and anyone getting a check from us has the routing number and account number, which is all they need)?!
If you don't understand the basics of computer security, you shouldn't be allowed to bank on the Internet. If you don't understand the basics of operating a car, you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads. Same principle at work here.
Don't take away my convience and require me to carry a smart card (oops, left it at home and can't do some needed banking at work or on vacation - sucks to be me) because of other's stupidity.
Let the stupid people lose their money, get off the Internet and/or go broke and die.
We molly coddle the stupid way too much in this country (USA).
If they must DO SOMETHING, just mandate the banks block *.aol.com at the firewall and be done with it.
95% of the problem will be solved.
Or have the server attempt the common Windows exploits, if they fail, the user isn't on Windows or has actually secured Windows - in either case they likely aren't terminally stupid - and the banking session should be allowed.
Now 99% of the problem is solved.
As for the remaining 1%, guess what, nothing is perfect. Even with 2 factor authentication, once logged in, a malicious hacker with control of your PC can add an illicit transaction request to the banking session.
In any event, people should be responsible for computer security. Secure your damn PC, learn to not trust spammers and scammers and don't be a dumbass.
Or stay off the Internet, and don't cross the street either if you are an idiot.
The parent comment is not a copy of the same poster's comment with the sense of no statements reversed. A rather plain sort of trolling, although it is not actually trolling.:)
If you want to cook there, all you need to do is fill out a piece of paper with your name and check "NO" where it asks if you committed a felony (don't worry if you actually did commit one - it's not like they check) and if they ask if you are legally allowed to work in the US, say "YES".
Also, tracking is bad enough, but making a device fail because boards have been swapped, that is a royal inconvenience and unnecessary expense. I'm sure people will find way to bypass the protections.
Selling drugs can be a federal capital crime under the Drug Kingpin law.
Weird fact about that law:
It specifies lethal injection (btw, they don't use doctors to administer it - as it is a gross violation of medical ethics and the Hippocratic oath to kill your patients - unless you are a bariatric surgeon in which case no one seems to care, but I digress), for all other fed death penalty cases they use the method of the/an involved state and if the state/states has/have no death penalty the feds get to pick any state's method.
Also, "felony murder" (i.e. committing a felony and someone dies) can also get one the death penalty. Hack a PC, and the owner gets upset, has a heart attack and dies, and you can be killed by the gov't.
Any felony can cost you your life.
If someone commits felony spam and someone dies of anaphylactic shock or a Viagra-nitrate interaction from pills bough because of the spam - technically they could be executed.
Quite unlikely and has nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act.
You can sue them both, take the assets of the seller if you can, go after the bonding company if you can't.
Just like one is still liable for damages in a car accident if one has insurance. The insurance company does indemnify you up to the liability limit, but that doesn't prevent people from suing you. You could get sued and lose, and the insurance company could refuse to pay (for example, if they think you were drunk even if you weren't and there is an exclusion for that) and you'd have to sue the insurance company to get paid - in the meantime you'd be in the hole to the plaintiff big time.
Bonding and insurance companies don't remove legal liability.
If we are going to attack software being used in censorship, keep this in mind:
The current definition of open source software precludes any restrictions on who may use it.
So if I release some software, and say I don't want some country or organization to use it, I can't call it open source (at least by the OSI definition).
There is an attack on the hackivsmo (not sure of the spelling) license which bans use by the military, etc - explaining that it isn't open source and one shouldn't use it.
Slashdot Mirror
We should put our faith in the Lord, not in ourselves.
As opposed to the less risky current technologies that blew 2 shuttles and 14 people to bits.
As someone famous once said:
Truth comes from the barrel of a gun.
At least, that is what appears to be the case with copyright law.
In Salt Lake City the LDS temple is at the origin.
If you don't have the unstable keyword (e.g. ~x86) or have any bleeding edge compile options set and you have a competent sysadmin it can be used fine on a production server.
It is not unreliable unless you make it so.
Yes, you need a more clueful sysadmin than someone who can just point an click with Red Hat.
But if your sysadmin can't handle the complexity of Gentoo he shouldn't be a sysadmin of a system which needs to be reliable at all - he should just get a MSCE and go do Windows support.
Would you feel comfortable writing a PDF reader in the USA?
There are still patents, copyrighted interfaces, trademarks, DRM issues (if the PDF has a do-not-copy flag set and your software ignores it - trouble!), etc, etc.
I looked it up and I still see no way party A can sign something or agree to something with party B in such a way as to make party C bound by the agreement.
You can't bind 3rd parties to an agreement (unless perhaps they made an agreement with you which would let you do that).
Dimitri Sklyarov was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada for writing software while in Russia which decoded e-books which were a form of Adobe PDFs.
People should use Gentoo Linux - truly open and fully configurable even down to the build level.
Someone patented RLE (run length encoding).
i.e., a string of X repeated Y times is represented as XY, e.g.
11144333529999998777222222222
is represented as
134233512196817329
Nifty, and useful for compressing something with a lot of serial redundancy (like PPM files, anything will help those!), but patent worthy?
The US gov't thought so.
Is his name Jim Bezos?
Just who is the "Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)", under what statuatory authority (if any) do they have to mandate two factor authentication and what penalties will there be if a bank allows customers to continue to use a userid and password alone.
Userid and password is simple, and effective in most cases.
The Feds want more security here, yet if I ask my bank to only accept ACTUAL PHYSICAL checks with my signature on them before honoring them and paying the other banks, it is ILLEGAL for my bank to give me what I want and refuse to accept a "substitute check". It is ILLEGAL for a bank to insist on security which would go a long way towards stopping check fraud, something which I can't protect against.
Whereas phishing attacks require stupidity on the part of the user.
Why protect people from seomthing they can protect themselves against, yet not protect us from something we can't protect ourselves from (people can forge our signature, and anyone getting a check from us has the routing number and account number, which is all they need)?!
If you don't understand the basics of computer security, you shouldn't be allowed to bank on the Internet. If you don't understand the basics of operating a car, you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads. Same principle at work here.
Don't take away my convience and require me to carry a smart card (oops, left it at home and can't do some needed banking at work or on vacation - sucks to be me) because of other's stupidity.
Let the stupid people lose their money, get off the Internet and/or go broke and die.
We molly coddle the stupid way too much in this country (USA).
If they must DO SOMETHING, just mandate the banks block *.aol.com at the firewall and be done with it.
95% of the problem will be solved.
Or have the server attempt the common Windows exploits, if they fail, the user isn't on Windows or has actually secured Windows - in either case they likely aren't terminally stupid - and the banking session should be allowed.
Now 99% of the problem is solved.
As for the remaining 1%, guess what, nothing is perfect. Even with 2 factor authentication, once logged in, a malicious hacker with control of your PC can add an illicit transaction request to the banking session.
In any event, people should be responsible for computer security. Secure your damn PC, learn to not trust spammers and scammers and don't be a dumbass.
Or stay off the Internet, and don't cross the street either if you are an idiot.
Moderators don't got no sense of humor today.
It's tempest in a teapot, not a teacup.
Someone edited it today.
Because of your post, now a lot more people have heard of it.
The parent comment is not a copy of the same poster's comment with the sense of no statements reversed. A rather plain sort of trolling, although it is not actually trolling. :)
Yeah, they're called fast food restaurants.
If you want to cook there, all you need to do is fill out a piece of paper with your name and check "NO" where it asks if you committed a felony (don't worry if you actually did commit one - it's not like they check) and if they ask if you are legally allowed to work in the US, say "YES".
Which law?
I haven't been able to find any law mandating it.
Also, tracking is bad enough, but making a device fail because boards have been swapped, that is a royal inconvenience and unnecessary expense. I'm sure people will find way to bypass the protections.
Thanks for the pointers to those docs.
A6 seems WAY OVER-engineered, this is something which could really slow down or derail IPv6.
AAAA seems fine, and more efficient for DNS resolution (which is more time critical than setting up DNS entries).
A6 is just too much.
I thought the DNS record type was AAAA, not A6.
Or was that what it was last year?
Looks like the standard is too much of a moving target if they are changing DNS record types.
IP address exhaustion is like Peak Oil.
There is a time where the problem is looming, but taking action then will mitigate a lot of the damage.
Or one can wait until it is having severe impacts, and then we will all be hosed very very badly.
Selling drugs can be a federal capital crime under the Drug Kingpin law.
Weird fact about that law:
It specifies lethal injection (btw, they don't use doctors to administer it - as it is a gross violation of medical ethics and the Hippocratic oath to kill your patients - unless you are a bariatric surgeon in which case no one seems to care, but I digress), for all other fed death penalty cases they use the method of the/an involved state and if the state/states has/have no death penalty the feds get to pick any state's method.
Also, "felony murder" (i.e. committing a felony and someone dies) can also get one the death penalty. Hack a PC, and the owner gets upset, has a heart attack and dies, and you can be killed by the gov't.
Any felony can cost you your life.
If someone commits felony spam and someone dies of anaphylactic shock or a Viagra-nitrate interaction from pills bough because of the spam - technically they could be executed.
Quite unlikely and has nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act.
After all that filtering, do you actually get any email that gets through??
Read up about "joint and several liability".
You can sue them both, take the assets of the seller if you can, go after the bonding company if you can't.
Just like one is still liable for damages in a car accident if one has insurance. The insurance company does indemnify you up to the liability limit, but that doesn't prevent people from suing you. You could get sued and lose, and the insurance company could refuse to pay (for example, if they think you were drunk even if you weren't and there is an exclusion for that) and you'd have to sue the insurance company to get paid - in the meantime you'd be in the hole to the plaintiff big time.
Bonding and insurance companies don't remove legal liability.
If we are going to attack software being used in censorship, keep this in mind:
The current definition of open source software precludes any restrictions on who may use it.
So if I release some software, and say I don't want some country or organization to use it, I can't call it open source (at least by the OSI definition).
There is an attack on the hackivsmo (not sure of the spelling) license which bans use by the military, etc - explaining that it isn't open source and one shouldn't use it.