If the problem consists of an unsecured data channel on managed systems, the preferred solution, from my point of view, would be to BIOS-protect the USB port.
For a home-system, the user has no need for protection of any sort on a USB port, since the home user can readily secure physical access to the box.
For a corporate IT provider, they will still want hardware commonality with the home-system, so that they can continue to take advantage of commodity hardware pricing. They also NEED to be able to install other OSes on these commodity boxes. Linux is a forgone conclusion in the corporate world. It's here to stay.
To secure the USB access, they'll simply configure USB ports to OFF in BIOS, save a password, and deliver the systems to their users like that.
End of story.
The complicated OS-based protection scheme does not fly with the corporate IT provider. Nor does it fly with Joe Sixpack.
The exit survey's that were done on people who went to see moore's film showed that it did not change their ideology, or their vote. Most of the Bush haters believed anything, and most of the non-Bush haters thought it was BS.
I don't think that the exit surveys done immediately after the film are going to be all that relevant. Those who were non-Bush haters, had their minds made up, to be sure. But if evidence comes to light for these people - an Iraqi civil war, a conviction in one of the many cases involving Bush appointees mishandling classified information, etc. - more evidence of Saudi coopration or compliance or support for terrorism, some of these people may change their minds.
And what was he to do? Let them stay so they could be found and lynched?
Don't be silly. Put them in protective custody. Question them. Subpoena their financial records for connections to terrorist funding. That sort of thing. If your answer to that is: "oh but that would piss off the Saudis, and they'd cut off our oil, and that would destroy the US Economy" - then guess what? Maybe that underscores how WEAK AND INSECURE America has been made by it's dependence on foreign oil. Maybe doing something to eliminate that weakness or at least mitigate it would be a GOOD thing. Any other response is simply oil for blood. The blood of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11/01, and the 1,000 US Troops who've died in Iraq so Saudi Arabia can be "free", and the 30,000+ civillian deaths in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
No, it was a case of not throwing innocent people to the wolves.
Nobody proposed that. In America, we're innocent until proven guilty. Nobody said to send the bin Ladens and Sauds to Guantanamo. (however, that raises a different, interesting point re: USA PATRIOT Act). All we're saying is that the Bush Administration went on TV and told the nation that it was going to put Security above Politics. At the same time, it was playing political footsie with influential Saudis, which potentially compromised our Security further. We're saying that they should have been, AT THE VERY LEAST, detained, put into protective custody, and questioned. If found to genuinely not have any ties to terrorism, then released.
The FAA is a PUBLIC agency, which regulates a PUBLIC resource - our nation's Airspace. NOBODY - especially foreign nationals with potential ties to terrorists, should have the privilege of using our PUBLIC RESOURCES when everyone else is being denied access for security reasons.
If Kerry were smart, he would attack Bush where he is the weakest, which is on the economy and Jobs.
While I agree with this personally - UNFORTUNATELY polling data reflects that Iraq/Terror are more important to the overwhelming majority of voters, (with the economy a close second).
Kerry should come out strongly against unfair trade agreements
Agreed
He needs to make outsourcing a larger issue
DEFINATELY (he needs to get past the "protectionist" label that's been slapped on the issue - because it's not at all about protectionism when the current tax code SUBSIDISES outsourcing).
He needs to make a point of repeating that he will only raise taxes on the wealthy, those who make over $200,000.
I think he's made that abundantly clear. Only the hard core wingnuts believe Kerry's going to raise their taxes. More to the point - Kerry needs to prove that Bush is lying about lowering taxes.
On top of that, he should say that he will help Social Security by making people pay social security tax on incomes over $90,000 and provide means-testing for social security (Not give social security payments to people who have over 1 million in the bank).
Agreed - but in all likelyhood, this will never fly in the legislature - until, to take a page from former Gov. Ventura; representatives get rid of their own special retirement pension plan, and cover themselves under
If you concede that Negative Campaigning is necessary - simply because one must always stoop to the same dirty tactics one's opponent is using, then what you're conceding is basically that the whole Enlightenment movement was just BS. That mankind has not progressed into an "Age of Reason". That we're still bloody savages, and that it's necessary for us to fight over scraps of meat from the rotting corpse of Human Civilization.
And if that's the case - if you make that concession, then you really do not support the philosophical ideals underlying the entire political spectrum to the left of Karl Rove (which is to say, any political position which is not the Neoconservative position).
Yes - agression is necessary to win conflicts. But the basic argument here is that Civilized People have rules and standards by which we live. Civilized People believe that it is those rules and standards which separate us from the Animals. In fighting the Animals for survival, if we abandon those rules and standards, we become no better than the Animals. Thus there is no point to existance other than fighting for survival. It's another tenant that BECAUSE we are Civilized, and BECAUSE we have rules and standards, that we are necessarily stronger, smarter, and better, and surviving, than are the Animals.
A perfect example of this is: in the FIRST Gulf War, Iraqi troops surrendered to Coalition Forces in massive, unprecedented numbers, because they knew that as POW's under the Geneva Conventions, they would be treated better than they were being treated as soldiers for Saddam's regime. The Coalition had a reputation, and they lived by that reputation, and the reputation lived in their actions. Starving Iraqi forces were fed, cared for, and released after the conflict. Compare that with the situation today, where Iraqi insurgents know that if they are captured alive, they may be submitted to humiliation, abuse, and torture. Thus, they fight to the death - to the hazard of our troops. Having taken off the "gloves" in the current conflict, we have shot ourselves squarely in the foot. We have become the enemy. In attempting to defend freedom, we have destroyed it.
The tactic of negative campaigning achieves two results:
1. Turns independents and undecideds OFF. Makes them stay home. Negatively impacts overall turnout.
2. Deflects attention on issues: When a candidate cannot convince voters that he will represent their views on issues, turning to character assassination of one's opponent is the alternative.
Typically, independents and undecideds tend to favor Democrats. This election is different, because of the perceived "Security" and "Terrorism" issues. (legitimately so or not). High Turnout=Democrat advantage. Low Turnout=Republican advantage. #2 is the reason that typically drives Dems to turn to negative campaigning. And in Kerry's case, it's not necessarily that all the things the Bush campaign is saying about his record are true. Clearly they're 10-second sound-byte distorted versions of a more complicated reality. But Kerry's REAL appeal, to me, at least, is his history in Senate Investigations. Particularly his KEY role in the Iran Contra and BCCI investigations. I think Kerry should be talking about these things. They're obscure, but they DO reflect on his character in a very positive way, while at the same time, impugning the character of the incumbent: Because the incumbent has had financial ties with BCCI through Arbusto Oil, and also through Ahmed Chalabi via Petra Bank, and WRT Iran Contra - the Incumbent has appointed many of the same perpetrators to this administration - people who arguably should have been jailed for their offenses.
Yeah - Kerry's missing some important points that would help him, and resonate a lot. He doesn't need to concede the Bush slamming, and respond in kind to the negative campaigning. He could put out a positive message that has all the punch of a negative campaign, with none of the drawbacks. In any case - that he's not doing this probably is what's being reflected by Bush's recent gains in the "Likely Voters" poll.
1. No limits on spending by individual private citizens - but ALL donations MUST be made in public, that is, NOT anonymously.
(this will have the following effect: So many billions will be spent, and the airwaves so oversaturated with ads, that the electorate will learn to tune them out, and turn elsewhere for better information. Or at the very least, they'll just start turning their TV's off).
2. No corporations may donate money to candidates, campaigns, or political organizations. Corporations are not people. They are not "Endowed with Rights By Their Creator" as people are. Corporations are a legal fiction. Legal Fictions Do Not Have Rights.
Bad user habits? How can an OS do anything about that?
Default configuration of Windows - in particular, Domain Authentication and Policy settings REQUIRING the presence of a PDC Server, (extra $$$ for a home user), practically ensures that a typical home user will by default, run as root-equivalent, under the insecure-as-hell Workgroup Authentication.
THAT is an OS-design issue.
In OS X, there is one authentication model, whether you're running a standalone workstation, or as part of a server-based authentication scheme. It is not the default to run as "Administrator" user, and additionally, there are many warning dialogs, and Tech articles that are designed to inform the typical home-user that running as an Adminsitrator on a daily basis is not advised. Furthermore, even as an Administrator user, certain tasks, like installing software, require additional password authentication. And finally, OS X's Administrator user is not even as privileged as "root" - in order to be root, it requires a fair amount of technical sophistication on the part of the user. I don't think it can even be accomplished through the standard GUI tools.
So in the standard default configuration found in a typical home-setting of a standalone system, out of the box, Windows, as-delivered, by design, is less secure, and more prone to the kinds of issues discussed earlier in this thread.
These are all characteristics of the OS design that make Windows a piece of crap, and OS X (and other Unix-based systems) not so crappy.
Windows' saving grace is: that it CAN be configured to be secure and stable.
Most of those pretty much refer to themselves as Christians. In my opinion, as a Christian, who has read the bible, but who does not believe that it is the infallible and complete Word of God, a person can base their faith on the concept of an All Powerful Creator, or a person can base their faith on what is described in the Bible. Any challenge to the precision of that description can upset their entire view of Reality.
So OF COURSE such people will be hostile to facts or reasoning that conflicts with the Bible.
Such people are really guilty of idolotry. They worship the Bible. Not God. They put all emphasis and effort into trying to twist reality into their Worldview. They're staring at the finger, pointing, instead of at the moon.
Those believers who do are not heavily invested in Biblical inerrancy often have doubts about specific things, often have fears, often have periods where they're not sure what they believe in. Sometimes they go astray. The story in the Bible tells of a people called "Israel", which is an Hebrew word meaning "Struggles with God". Above all others, these people are favored and treasured. Those prodigal sons who stray and return are valued above others. That's the lesson contained in scripture. Not "God hates fags".
One thing's certain in my mind. If far more people focussed more on God, and less on scripture (whether it's the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever), and less on what their neighbors may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own homes, and less on how to make more money than they need to live comfortably, there'd be a shitload less violence in the world.
I develop a product for a desktop system that's tightly managed in terms of software that's installed, user's rights are sharply curtailed, and the system is on an isolated network. The OS is Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 6a.
8% sounds kinda high to me. These systems, while they have their faults (mostly related to access of the DVD burner causing Explorer to hang or pause for extended periods), they're pretty damn solid.
In a tightly-controlled environment, even NT 4.0 can be well-behaved.
On the other hand, in "the wild", I have not yet seen a Windows system, even XP, that survives on it's own for longer than a month or two, and after that, the owner better be tech savvy, and not afraid to do OS reinstalls. Worms, Adware, Spyware, bad user habits, and just plain crappy commercial software, are all just a bit more than a typical Windows OS installation can handle.
What brings me to even post this entry is just that in my prior years of experience, Windows was always just a piece of crap. I dealt with it on a daily basis. But in the past two years, when I changed jobs, I found that you CAN engineer a safe sandbox, in which Windows can actually be reliable and useful. I freely admit that my situation represents probably less than one one-hundredth of one percent of all Windows systems out there. But there it is. My point is, that saying "8% of all Windows Sessions Crash" is stupid. It depends on the environment, and the user, and the situation.
I can't really compare to Linux, because I don't have a whole lot of experience with Linux in "the wild". But I can say that Mac OS X is an order of magnitude more stable and robust, with minimal intervention by a tech-savvy admin.
Their nukes can already reach Alaska and soon will be able to reach California.
If you think GWB is going to work up a sweat figuring out how to protect his constituents in San Francisco, I've got a big red bridge I'd like to sell you. ..
What does it get her? She gets to watch lazy good for nothings keep a job they don't deserve or work for.
. . . to be fair, my wife works in a decidedly NON-union shop. (WalMart, where their internal budget for spewing anti-union propaganda to employees totals $2 million a year). She sees MANY lazy good for nothings keep their jobs they don't deserve or work for.
I agree that Unions, by and large, today, are corrupt organizations designed mainly to take a cut of what workers earn in return for, being placed in a position of political influence, for themselves. But the concept of Unions in of itself shouldn't be confused with how they're being implemented today.
Winners compare their achievments to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
. . . yeah, as long as the "winners" set low enough goals for themselves. "look ma! I didn't crap in my pants today." "Gee junior! You're a winner!"
IMO - What's really needed is a file-system modification; a "copy" permission for data stored in a file. User would be able to READ that data into memory for an application, but would be unable to write that data to another file. This would necessarily also need to be hooked into the clipboard API to prevent the user from simply copying and pasting the data into a new file. Probably every application would need modification to support such a change. Then unmodified applications would need to be locked out somehow so that the user couldn't work around this limitation.
Re:Philosophical v. practical origins of IP law
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Tell the author of that book that I said that's all a bunch of bullshit.
Only justification that matters is the Constitution. "To promote the useful arts and sciences" and "for a limited time" are the key phrases here. We should be arguing over what exactly constitutes "promotion" within the framework of the government's role, and what "limited time" actually means. (I'm not in favor of "infinity-1 years" that the MPAA lobbyists appear to like).
We might also try to more precisely define "useful" - maybe to exclude pop music.
And I suspect keeping a secret all the way up to the Bush White House would be...unmanagable and dangerous as hell.
Given the current political climate in the US today, where the media is roundly accused of having "liberal bias" - where anyone who questions the Administrations Policies is accused of "Treason", or not being Patriotic, hell, people who have made accusations about Bush's relationships to Saudi Royals, or his Pentagon staffer's relationships to Israeli Lobbyists were labelled "tinfoil hats" (all of it has been borne out as true.) - I think it's VERY plausible that this particular issue could go all the way to the White House (and beyond).
......while most of the problems with Diebold software can easily be explained by total incompetence and lack of regard for the importance of correct behavior. ..
Seems to be the stock explanation these days for a range of issues, from Enron, to the S&L failures and Iran Contra scandals of the 1980's to the bad WMD evidence, to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Chalabi-gate, Richard Pearle/Lord Black, etc - - -
"It's not my fault, I didn't know that my associates were being dishonest. I wasn't in the loop."
Seems like a few people are getting paid a whole lot of money for being incompetent boobs. Or maybe they were thieves after all. . .
Well, since James Bond's "Man's manness" has already been spoofed in the name of Austin Powers - maybe it's time for a Kirk spoof. . . oh wait, they dun did dat already. . . (can't even remember the NAME of that damn movie).
I especially love how Bush likes to tell his story of the 7 Iraqi businessmen whose hands Saddam cut off.
Let's talk about the hundreds in Afghanistan who have had their hands cut off since we "liberated" them. Or the hundreds in Saudi Arabia who've been publicy beheaded since we became their bitch and eliminated their regional enemies for them.
If you want to talk about eliminating brutal dictators, Saddam was SMALL POTATOES. Stories of him killing millions were, by the way, more Chalabi distortions. Saddam killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. Not millions. The numbers found in the mass graves were grossly distorted. Not a nice fellow, to be sure. But compared to the TERRORIST FUNDING BRUTAL THEOCRATIC FUNDAMENTALIST OIL-SUPPLY-CONTROLLING REGIME in Saudi Arabia, nothing. You want to talk about threats to US Security? Start with Bush's closest business partners.
Any time the press in mentioning the price tag in their headlines, you know you're screwed.
Score another victory for the "liberal" press, again bound and determined to discredit anything the government does that costs taxpayer money, and especially anything that could be construed as blasphemy against the Bible.
he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
THAT'S IT MAN! YOU'VE DISCOVERED THE SECRET!!!
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!
Slashdot Mirror
If the problem consists of an unsecured data channel on managed systems, the preferred solution, from my point of view, would be to BIOS-protect the USB port.
For a home-system, the user has no need for protection of any sort on a USB port, since the home user can readily secure physical access to the box.
For a corporate IT provider, they will still want hardware commonality with the home-system, so that they can continue to take advantage of commodity hardware pricing. They also NEED to be able to install other OSes on these commodity boxes. Linux is a forgone conclusion in the corporate world. It's here to stay.
To secure the USB access, they'll simply configure USB ports to OFF in BIOS, save a password, and deliver the systems to their users like that.
End of story.
The complicated OS-based protection scheme does not fly with the corporate IT provider. Nor does it fly with Joe Sixpack.
The exit survey's that were done on people who went to see moore's film showed that it did not change their ideology, or their vote. Most of the Bush haters believed anything, and most of the non-Bush haters thought it was BS.
I don't think that the exit surveys done immediately after the film are going to be all that relevant. Those who were non-Bush haters, had their minds made up, to be sure. But if evidence comes to light for these people - an Iraqi civil war, a conviction in one of the many cases involving Bush appointees mishandling classified information, etc. - more evidence of Saudi coopration or compliance or support for terrorism, some of these people may change their minds.
And what was he to do? Let them stay so they could be found and lynched?
Don't be silly. Put them in protective custody. Question them. Subpoena their financial records for connections to terrorist funding. That sort of thing.
If your answer to that is: "oh but that would piss off the Saudis, and they'd cut off our oil, and that would destroy the US Economy" - then guess what? Maybe that underscores how WEAK AND INSECURE America has been made by it's dependence on foreign oil. Maybe doing something to eliminate that weakness or at least mitigate it would be a GOOD thing. Any other response is simply oil for blood. The blood of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11/01, and the 1,000 US Troops who've died in Iraq so Saudi Arabia can be "free", and the 30,000+ civillian deaths in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
No, it was a case of not throwing innocent people to the wolves.
Nobody proposed that. In America, we're innocent until proven guilty. Nobody said to send the bin Ladens and Sauds to Guantanamo. (however, that raises a different, interesting point re: USA PATRIOT Act). All we're saying is that the Bush Administration went on TV and told the nation that it was going to put Security above Politics. At the same time, it was playing political footsie with influential Saudis, which potentially compromised our Security further. We're saying that they should have been, AT THE VERY LEAST, detained, put into protective custody, and questioned. If found to genuinely not have any ties to terrorism, then released.
The FAA is a PUBLIC agency, which regulates a PUBLIC resource - our nation's Airspace. NOBODY - especially foreign nationals with potential ties to terrorists, should have the privilege of using our PUBLIC RESOURCES when everyone else is being denied access for security reasons.
If Kerry were smart, he would attack Bush where he is the weakest, which is on the economy and Jobs.
While I agree with this personally - UNFORTUNATELY polling data reflects that Iraq/Terror are more important to the overwhelming majority of voters, (with the economy a close second).
Kerry should come out strongly against unfair trade agreements
Agreed
He needs to make outsourcing a larger issue
DEFINATELY (he needs to get past the "protectionist" label that's been slapped on the issue - because it's not at all about protectionism when the current tax code SUBSIDISES outsourcing).
He needs to make a point of repeating that he will only raise taxes on the wealthy, those who make over $200,000.
I think he's made that abundantly clear. Only the hard core wingnuts believe Kerry's going to raise their taxes. More to the point - Kerry needs to prove that Bush is lying about lowering taxes.
On top of that, he should say that he will help Social Security by making people pay social security tax on incomes over $90,000 and provide means-testing for social security (Not give social security payments to people who have over 1 million in the bank).
Agreed - but in all likelyhood, this will never fly in the legislature - until, to take a page from former Gov. Ventura; representatives get rid of their own special retirement pension plan, and cover themselves under
If you concede that Negative Campaigning is necessary - simply because one must always stoop to the same dirty tactics one's opponent is using, then what you're conceding is basically that the whole Enlightenment movement was just BS. That mankind has not progressed into an "Age of Reason". That we're still bloody savages, and that it's necessary for us to fight over scraps of meat from the rotting corpse of Human Civilization.
And if that's the case - if you make that concession, then you really do not support the philosophical ideals underlying the entire political spectrum to the left of Karl Rove (which is to say, any political position which is not the Neoconservative position).
Yes - agression is necessary to win conflicts. But the basic argument here is that Civilized People have rules and standards by which we live. Civilized People believe that it is those rules and standards which separate us from the Animals. In fighting the Animals for survival, if we abandon those rules and standards, we become no better than the Animals. Thus there is no point to existance other than fighting for survival. It's another tenant that BECAUSE we are Civilized, and BECAUSE we have rules and standards, that we are necessarily stronger, smarter, and better, and surviving, than are the Animals.
A perfect example of this is: in the FIRST Gulf War, Iraqi troops surrendered to Coalition Forces in massive, unprecedented numbers, because they knew that as POW's under the Geneva Conventions, they would be treated better than they were being treated as soldiers for Saddam's regime. The Coalition had a reputation, and they lived by that reputation, and the reputation lived in their actions. Starving Iraqi forces were fed, cared for, and released after the conflict.
Compare that with the situation today, where Iraqi insurgents know that if they are captured alive, they may be submitted to humiliation, abuse, and torture. Thus, they fight to the death - to the hazard of our troops.
Having taken off the "gloves" in the current conflict, we have shot ourselves squarely in the foot. We have become the enemy. In attempting to defend freedom, we have destroyed it.
The tactic of negative campaigning achieves two results:
1. Turns independents and undecideds OFF. Makes them stay home. Negatively impacts overall turnout.
2. Deflects attention on issues: When a candidate cannot convince voters that he will represent their views on issues, turning to character assassination of one's opponent is the alternative.
Typically, independents and undecideds tend to favor Democrats. This election is different, because of the perceived "Security" and "Terrorism" issues. (legitimately so or not). High Turnout=Democrat advantage. Low Turnout=Republican advantage. #2 is the reason that typically drives Dems to turn to negative campaigning. And in Kerry's case, it's not necessarily that all the things the Bush campaign is saying about his record are true. Clearly they're 10-second sound-byte distorted versions of a more complicated reality. But Kerry's REAL appeal, to me, at least, is his history in Senate Investigations. Particularly his KEY role in the Iran Contra and BCCI investigations. I think Kerry should be talking about these things. They're obscure, but they DO reflect on his character in a very positive way, while at the same time, impugning the character of the incumbent: Because the incumbent has had financial ties with BCCI through Arbusto Oil, and also through Ahmed Chalabi via Petra Bank, and WRT Iran Contra - the Incumbent has appointed many of the same perpetrators to this administration - people who arguably should have been jailed for their offenses.
Yeah - Kerry's missing some important points that would help him, and resonate a lot. He doesn't need to concede the Bush slamming, and respond in kind to the negative campaigning. He could put out a positive message that has all the punch of a negative campaign, with none of the drawbacks. In any case - that he's not doing this probably is what's being reflected by Bush's recent gains in the "Likely Voters" poll.
My proposal for REAL campaign finance reform:
1. No limits on spending by individual private citizens - but ALL donations MUST be made in public, that is, NOT anonymously.
(this will have the following effect: So many billions will be spent, and the airwaves so oversaturated with ads, that the electorate will learn to tune them out, and turn elsewhere for better information. Or at the very least, they'll just start turning their TV's off).
2. No corporations may donate money to candidates, campaigns, or political organizations. Corporations are not people. They are not "Endowed with Rights By Their Creator" as people are. Corporations are a legal fiction. Legal Fictions Do Not Have Rights.
Bad user habits? How can an OS do anything about that?
Default configuration of Windows - in particular, Domain Authentication and Policy settings REQUIRING the presence of a PDC Server, (extra $$$ for a home user), practically ensures that a typical home user will by default, run as root-equivalent, under the insecure-as-hell Workgroup Authentication.
THAT is an OS-design issue.
In OS X, there is one authentication model, whether you're running a standalone workstation, or as part of a server-based authentication scheme.
It is not the default to run as "Administrator" user, and additionally, there are many warning dialogs, and Tech articles that are designed to inform the typical home-user that running as an Adminsitrator on a daily basis is not advised. Furthermore, even as an Administrator user, certain tasks, like installing software, require additional password authentication. And finally, OS X's Administrator user is not even as privileged as "root" - in order to be root, it requires a fair amount of technical sophistication on the part of the user. I don't think it can even be accomplished through the standard GUI tools.
So in the standard default configuration found in a typical home-setting of a standalone system, out of the box, Windows, as-delivered, by design, is less secure, and more prone to the kinds of issues discussed earlier in this thread.
These are all characteristics of the OS design that make Windows a piece of crap, and OS X (and other Unix-based systems) not so crappy.
Windows' saving grace is: that it CAN be configured to be secure and stable.
Science DOES have a Morality.
It's called Ethics.
You're not talking about Christians.
You're talking about "Bible Believers".
Most of those pretty much refer to themselves as Christians. In my opinion, as a Christian, who has read the bible, but who does not believe that it is the infallible and complete Word of God, a person can base their faith on the concept of an All Powerful Creator, or a person can base their faith on what is described in the Bible. Any challenge to the precision of that description can upset their entire view of Reality.
So OF COURSE such people will be hostile to facts or reasoning that conflicts with the Bible.
Such people are really guilty of idolotry. They worship the Bible. Not God. They put all emphasis and effort into trying to twist reality into their Worldview. They're staring at the finger, pointing, instead of at the moon.
Those believers who do are not heavily invested in Biblical inerrancy often have doubts about specific things, often have fears, often have periods where they're not sure what they believe in. Sometimes they go astray. The story in the Bible tells of a people called "Israel", which is an Hebrew word meaning "Struggles with God". Above all others, these people are favored and treasured. Those prodigal sons who stray and return are valued above others. That's the lesson contained in scripture. Not "God hates fags".
One thing's certain in my mind. If far more people focussed more on God, and less on scripture (whether it's the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever), and less on what their neighbors may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own homes, and less on how to make more money than they need to live comfortably, there'd be a shitload less violence in the world.
I develop a product for a desktop system that's tightly managed in terms of software that's installed, user's rights are sharply curtailed, and the system is on an isolated network. The OS is Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 6a.
8% sounds kinda high to me. These systems, while they have their faults (mostly related to access of the DVD burner causing Explorer to hang or pause for extended periods), they're pretty damn solid.
In a tightly-controlled environment, even NT 4.0 can be well-behaved.
On the other hand, in "the wild", I have not yet seen a Windows system, even XP, that survives on it's own for longer than a month or two, and after that, the owner better be tech savvy, and not afraid to do OS reinstalls. Worms, Adware, Spyware, bad user habits, and just plain crappy commercial software, are all just a bit more than a typical Windows OS installation can handle.
What brings me to even post this entry is just that in my prior years of experience, Windows was always just a piece of crap. I dealt with it on a daily basis. But in the past two years, when I changed jobs, I found that you CAN engineer a safe sandbox, in which Windows can actually be reliable and useful.
I freely admit that my situation represents probably less than one one-hundredth of one percent of all Windows systems out there. But there it is. My point is, that saying "8% of all Windows Sessions Crash" is stupid. It depends on the environment, and the user, and the situation.
I can't really compare to Linux, because I don't have a whole lot of experience with Linux in "the wild". But I can say that Mac OS X is an order of magnitude more stable and robust, with minimal intervention by a tech-savvy admin.
not "drug-related".
"drug-WAR-related".
Nobody ever shot anyone over a Viagra.
Their nukes can already reach Alaska and soon will be able to reach California.
.
If you think GWB is going to work up a sweat figuring out how to protect his constituents in San Francisco, I've got a big red bridge I'd like to sell you. .
What does it get her? She gets to watch lazy good for nothings keep a job they don't deserve or work for.
. . . to be fair, my wife works in a decidedly NON-union shop. (WalMart, where their internal budget for spewing anti-union propaganda to employees totals $2 million a year). She sees MANY lazy good for nothings keep their jobs they don't deserve or work for.
I agree that Unions, by and large, today, are corrupt organizations designed mainly to take a cut of what workers earn in return for, being placed in a position of political influence, for themselves. But the concept of Unions in of itself shouldn't be confused with how they're being implemented today.
Winners compare their achievments to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
. . . yeah, as long as the "winners" set low enough goals for themselves. "look ma! I didn't crap in my pants today." "Gee junior! You're a winner!"
IMO - What's really needed is a file-system modification; a "copy" permission for data stored in a file. User would be able to READ that data into memory for an application, but would be unable to write that data to another file. This would necessarily also need to be hooked into the clipboard API to prevent the user from simply copying and pasting the data into a new file. Probably every application would need modification to support such a change. Then unmodified applications would need to be locked out somehow so that the user couldn't work around this limitation.
Tell the author of that book that I said that's all a bunch of bullshit.
Only justification that matters is the Constitution. "To promote the useful arts and sciences" and "for a limited time" are the key phrases here. We should be arguing over what exactly constitutes "promotion" within the framework of the government's role, and what "limited time" actually means. (I'm not in favor of "infinity-1 years" that the MPAA lobbyists appear to like).
We might also try to more precisely define "useful" - maybe to exclude pop music.
Everything else is bullshit.
And I suspect keeping a secret all the way up to the Bush White House would be...unmanagable and dangerous as hell.
Given the current political climate in the US today, where the media is roundly accused of having "liberal bias" - where anyone who questions the Administrations Policies is accused of "Treason", or not being Patriotic, hell, people who have made accusations about Bush's relationships to Saudi Royals, or his Pentagon staffer's relationships to Israeli Lobbyists were labelled "tinfoil hats" (all of it has been borne out as true.) - I think it's VERY plausible that this particular issue could go all the way to the White House (and beyond).
......while most of the problems with Diebold software can easily be explained by total incompetence and lack of regard for the importance of correct behavior. . .
Seems to be the stock explanation these days for a range of issues, from Enron, to the S&L failures and Iran Contra scandals of the 1980's to the bad WMD evidence, to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Chalabi-gate, Richard Pearle/Lord Black, etc - - -
"It's not my fault, I didn't know that my associates were being dishonest. I wasn't in the loop."
Seems like a few people are getting paid a whole lot of money for being incompetent boobs. Or maybe they were thieves after all. . .
Well, since James Bond's "Man's manness" has already been spoofed in the name of Austin Powers - maybe it's time for a Kirk spoof. . . oh wait, they dun did dat already. . . (can't even remember the NAME of that damn movie).
I'll be happy when the CEO's cell-mate "Bubba" is taking care of his "Ying-Yang".
The guys at the Las Vegas Hilton will all have to find new jobs. . .
Most likeley they're planning on buying up images of the border region between Iran and Iraq.....
I especially love how Bush likes to tell his story of the 7 Iraqi businessmen whose hands Saddam cut off.
Let's talk about the hundreds in Afghanistan who have had their hands cut off since we "liberated" them. Or the hundreds in Saudi Arabia who've been publicy beheaded since we became their bitch and eliminated their regional enemies for them.
If you want to talk about eliminating brutal dictators, Saddam was SMALL POTATOES. Stories of him killing millions were, by the way, more Chalabi distortions. Saddam killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. Not millions. The numbers found in the mass graves were grossly distorted. Not a nice fellow, to be sure. But compared to the TERRORIST FUNDING BRUTAL THEOCRATIC FUNDAMENTALIST OIL-SUPPLY-CONTROLLING REGIME in Saudi Arabia, nothing. You want to talk about threats to US Security? Start with Bush's closest business partners.
Greensboro NC?
Perhaps you should move to a region of the US that invests in it's public education system better.
Then you can find tons of qualified unemployed engineers who would be willing to work for you.
Or if you're desperate to stay in a "squeal like a pig" state, then offer some competitive relocation packages to out of work engineers in California.
Note to self:
For subsequent capsule re-entry operations, include a redundant RF-remote override for firing of pyros for chute.
Thank God this thing was unmanned.
Any time the press in mentioning the price tag in their headlines, you know you're screwed.
Score another victory for the "liberal" press, again bound and determined to discredit anything the government does that costs taxpayer money, and especially anything that could be construed as blasphemy against the Bible.
he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
THAT'S IT MAN! YOU'VE DISCOVERED THE SECRET!!!
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!