You don't always know if you have insecure services, though. You can limit the rights of the accounts under which services run, but there may still be ways of using vulnerabilities to get around that. This is one of the reasons that application-level firewalls are becoming so popular, as allowing only RFC-compliant (at least essentially so) traffic can prevent numerous exploits. Having dropped such a firewall into the middle of a network before, I've seen what suddenly gets blocked.
You get partial help with the partition on the same physical drive, because fragmentation doesn't become such an issue. However, if performance is a factor, it's better to put the swap file on another physical drive.
It's a manual procedure. Create a partition of 5GB and format it. Configure the swap file to be 4GB and to go on that partition only. This reserves the remaining gigabyte for temp files, which can be pointed to that location through a couple of other parameters.
With a few exceptions, the kinds of curtailment that are happening or being attempted now were not tried on a large scale when communism was the major scare. Instead, the fact that such measures weren't in place was held up as the difference between us and the communists.
Speaking an untruth is not necessarily the same thing as lying. People may believe something that is incorrect, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in honestly speaking their beliefs they are mistaken but not lying.
None of what you put in there rises to the level of impeachment. Gore would have had to deal with 9/11, and probably would have invaded Afghanistan, too. Congress was complicit in the failings that led to the Patriot Act, but note that Congress has also been pushing back even as the courts question the provisions that were not sunset. There is little proof available that Bush or Cheney had anything to do with Valerie Plame, and technically there was nothing illegal about the firings of the US attorneys -- they serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by same for any or no reason.
There's a lot to complain about in the Executive Branch. However, poor decisions, even when politically motivated, are not and should not be impeachable offenses. If you can find evidence of bribery or other malfeasance, then I'll gladly stand behind articles of impeachment. But impeachment has been thrown around as a political tool for the last dozen years, and that is not its proper use.
Pedantry aside, the point is probably moot, as it's almost certain that no party would risk selecting a vice presidential candidate who might be passed over as president in case the higher office became vacant.
It's debatable if someone who had served ten years could even be sworn into office as vice president, but even if possible, and the role of the president became vacant, the vice president would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House, as anyone who is sworn in must be eligible under the Constitution to serve.
Actually, absent some sort of corroborating evidence causing them to enter without a warrant, they're going to want to get a signed affidavit from you to present to a judge to get that warrant, and therefore you would be under oath, and so you would be liable for damages, as well as possible criminal prosecution. Even if they did go in without a warrant based on your statement, they're probably going to question you before going in, perhaps asking if you're willing to swear under oath, and you may face charges anyway.
I am not defending his actions. I am arguing that the articles of impeachment have little or no merit. Not one of the statements presented in the articles introduced by Kucinich were from statements before Congress, so on that basis, he never lied to them. Lying in public is generally not a crime.
On the topic of Congress, I'm not aware of any president or vice president that has talked to Congress while under oath, and I seem to remember Bill Clinton fighting it to avoid binding the precedent on future occupants of the White House, some of whom will likely be of his party.
What I am saying is that, while not a fan of either Bush or Cheney, I do not believe that their provable actions at this time rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. Opposing the articles of impeachment does not mean supporting their target.
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.
Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran
Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.
Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.
I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.
It's not the speed of making it, but rather the texture that comes about from it. Many others have made ice cream using liquid nitrogen, and it is universally hailed as the smoothest ice cream available (at least until someone figures out how to do it with liquid helium). It's one of those things that is often done just for the sheer experience of it.
They don't get tips anymore because the billing is most often done by credit card, and they don't come close enough to see what might get left on the door for them in any case.
Define "statistically likely" and maybe we can agree. However, there are millions of households that have abusive relationships, but we don't have millions of murders, even over the course of 20 years.
This kind of thought is the reason that we have the system that we do. Just because someone is a complete and utter dick doesn't mean that they're guilty of murder. Controlling? Probably. Abusive? Perhaps. But there are a lot of controlling, abusive dicks that don't murder their wives. There's evidence against him, but it has to go through a court first. I was saying this to others in the Scott Peterson case, too, and it's important that it not just be a formality.
Police frequently focus on more than one subject at a time. There have also been cases where they will stop public focus on one suspect while monitoring him for changes in behavior. This doesn't mean that they've ruled out whomever they're publicly talking about, but if the pressure is removed from one that is deemed more likely, then that person may slip up. Details of ongoing investigations are often not public records, so we won't know until after any trial is finished.
Currently, I can either transfer the file in 27Mbps (802.11g - "54Mbps - it's full duplex and 27 in each direction!")
Most 54Mbps wireless networks do max out at about 30Mbps, but not for that reason. You miss out on the max speeds because of overhead from the 802.11 protocols and interference, not so much because it's flipping directions. If you've got 802.11b clients in the area, it can get even worse, dropping an 802.11g connection down to a practical throughput of about 15Mbps.
Anyone who claims wireless is full duplex doesn't know what they're talking about.
Almost everyone who flies casually flies by the dollar, and will take a $358 flight over a $359 flight, all else being equal. Few people pick airlines for particular reasons. My parents fly American exclusively, but they know the Boeing rep for American, and can get maintenance reports for specific aircraft scheduled for their flights. They've never changed their flights yet, but it makes them feel better. I fly United because of Channel 9, which allows me to listen to the cockpit radio on most of their planes, which also makes me check on the particular aircraft type, as some of them have some XM Radio channel on it instead.
This idea of United really doesn't affect me. I'm not usually in a hurry to get out of the airport, and if I ever were, I would simply avoid checking any items, as I can fit most of a week's worth of clothes in a carry-on-sized bag. I arrive a couple of hours ahead thanks to a shuttle, and I'm usually among the last off of the plane unless I'm short on time to make a connection. I take my time to the next gate or to the baggage carousel, because it's not going to change my timing all that much. Unless I'm among the first to get on the plane, I'm probably going to be standing in the jetway for anywhere from a minute to five minutes anyway, and an extra five or ten minutes at the baggage carousel simply isn't going to kill me, especially since I usually have my notebook or a book with me to pass the time.
I don't stress over this, as it doesn't affect the way I fly. If it goes over badly, and Delta, et al, start advertising that they won't do this, then United may well quietly drop it, the same way every airline experiments with ticket prices for a few hours at a time.
Piracy is unauthorized replication and distribution. A copyright holder can require that those who get something for free get it from a specific source. In this case, downloading it for free from Radiohead is not piracy, while downloading it via eDonkey is piracy.
It's easier to block them all than to pick and choose which ones are OK. However, I've been able to continue using my digital camera both immediately after takeoff and on approach, even when attendants have seen it in my hands with my eye at the viewfinder.
I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.
They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.
Then-Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the biggest candidate that he faced, and that was a very, very poor choice.
Schwarzenegger is widely regarded in business circles as savvy and intelligent, and before he made his biggest money in Hollywood, he'd become fairly wealthy in real estate. However, he ran as a moderate Republican and has turned out to be more liberal in many ways than the Democrat that he replaced. At least we get to see most of the bad deals that he makes, as opposed to Davis's multitude of closed-door, secret meetings selling off the state's future.
Indeed. This was old years ago -- before the recall election was even completed. It doesn't help that even when his name did appear, it was spelled incorrectly ("Schwartzenneger" as opposed to the proper spelling, "Schwarzenegger").
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't change my opinion of Gore one way or the other, which is somewhat skeptical but largely ambivalent, but it does confuse me.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
While it's clear that Gore and the IPCC are willing to continue in the face of great controversy, and that climate change may become a major factor in human existence, I'm not seeing anything in their work that improves international relations, reduces armies, or promotes peace. What has happened is that people have become much, much more nervous about certain critical resources, which may have led to more tension over those resources without doing much to alleviate the issues, and this includes almost every Western power. We won't know for another 50 years, IIRC, who the other nominees were, but I'm fairly certain that others might have been more to the point on Nobel's intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't always know if you have insecure services, though. You can limit the rights of the accounts under which services run, but there may still be ways of using vulnerabilities to get around that. This is one of the reasons that application-level firewalls are becoming so popular, as allowing only RFC-compliant (at least essentially so) traffic can prevent numerous exploits. Having dropped such a firewall into the middle of a network before, I've seen what suddenly gets blocked.
You get partial help with the partition on the same physical drive, because fragmentation doesn't become such an issue. However, if performance is a factor, it's better to put the swap file on another physical drive.
It's a manual procedure. Create a partition of 5GB and format it. Configure the swap file to be 4GB and to go on that partition only. This reserves the remaining gigabyte for temp files, which can be pointed to that location through a couple of other parameters.
Could be ... communism
With a few exceptions, the kinds of curtailment that are happening or being attempted now were not tried on a large scale when communism was the major scare. Instead, the fact that such measures weren't in place was held up as the difference between us and the communists.
Speaking an untruth is not necessarily the same thing as lying. People may believe something that is incorrect, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in honestly speaking their beliefs they are mistaken but not lying.
None of what you put in there rises to the level of impeachment. Gore would have had to deal with 9/11, and probably would have invaded Afghanistan, too. Congress was complicit in the failings that led to the Patriot Act, but note that Congress has also been pushing back even as the courts question the provisions that were not sunset. There is little proof available that Bush or Cheney had anything to do with Valerie Plame, and technically there was nothing illegal about the firings of the US attorneys -- they serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by same for any or no reason.
There's a lot to complain about in the Executive Branch. However, poor decisions, even when politically motivated, are not and should not be impeachable offenses. If you can find evidence of bribery or other malfeasance, then I'll gladly stand behind articles of impeachment. But impeachment has been thrown around as a political tool for the last dozen years, and that is not its proper use.
Pedantry aside, the point is probably moot, as it's almost certain that no party would risk selecting a vice presidential candidate who might be passed over as president in case the higher office became vacant.
It's debatable if someone who had served ten years could even be sworn into office as vice president, but even if possible, and the role of the president became vacant, the vice president would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House, as anyone who is sworn in must be eligible under the Constitution to serve.
Actually, absent some sort of corroborating evidence causing them to enter without a warrant, they're going to want to get a signed affidavit from you to present to a judge to get that warrant, and therefore you would be under oath, and so you would be liable for damages, as well as possible criminal prosecution. Even if they did go in without a warrant based on your statement, they're probably going to question you before going in, perhaps asking if you're willing to swear under oath, and you may face charges anyway.
I am not defending his actions. I am arguing that the articles of impeachment have little or no merit. Not one of the statements presented in the articles introduced by Kucinich were from statements before Congress, so on that basis, he never lied to them. Lying in public is generally not a crime.
On the topic of Congress, I'm not aware of any president or vice president that has talked to Congress while under oath, and I seem to remember Bill Clinton fighting it to avoid binding the precedent on future occupants of the White House, some of whom will likely be of his party.
What I am saying is that, while not a fan of either Bush or Cheney, I do not believe that their provable actions at this time rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. Opposing the articles of impeachment does not mean supporting their target.
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.
Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran
Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.
Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.
I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.
It's not the speed of making it, but rather the texture that comes about from it. Many others have made ice cream using liquid nitrogen, and it is universally hailed as the smoothest ice cream available (at least until someone figures out how to do it with liquid helium). It's one of those things that is often done just for the sheer experience of it.
They don't get tips anymore because the billing is most often done by credit card, and they don't come close enough to see what might get left on the door for them in any case.
Define "statistically likely" and maybe we can agree. However, there are millions of households that have abusive relationships, but we don't have millions of murders, even over the course of 20 years.
This kind of thought is the reason that we have the system that we do. Just because someone is a complete and utter dick doesn't mean that they're guilty of murder. Controlling? Probably. Abusive? Perhaps. But there are a lot of controlling, abusive dicks that don't murder their wives. There's evidence against him, but it has to go through a court first. I was saying this to others in the Scott Peterson case, too, and it's important that it not just be a formality.
Police frequently focus on more than one subject at a time. There have also been cases where they will stop public focus on one suspect while monitoring him for changes in behavior. This doesn't mean that they've ruled out whomever they're publicly talking about, but if the pressure is removed from one that is deemed more likely, then that person may slip up. Details of ongoing investigations are often not public records, so we won't know until after any trial is finished.
Currently, I can either transfer the file in 27Mbps (802.11g - "54Mbps - it's full duplex and 27 in each direction!")
Most 54Mbps wireless networks do max out at about 30Mbps, but not for that reason. You miss out on the max speeds because of overhead from the 802.11 protocols and interference, not so much because it's flipping directions. If you've got 802.11b clients in the area, it can get even worse, dropping an 802.11g connection down to a practical throughput of about 15Mbps.
Anyone who claims wireless is full duplex doesn't know what they're talking about.
Almost everyone who flies casually flies by the dollar, and will take a $358 flight over a $359 flight, all else being equal. Few people pick airlines for particular reasons. My parents fly American exclusively, but they know the Boeing rep for American, and can get maintenance reports for specific aircraft scheduled for their flights. They've never changed their flights yet, but it makes them feel better. I fly United because of Channel 9, which allows me to listen to the cockpit radio on most of their planes, which also makes me check on the particular aircraft type, as some of them have some XM Radio channel on it instead.
This idea of United really doesn't affect me. I'm not usually in a hurry to get out of the airport, and if I ever were, I would simply avoid checking any items, as I can fit most of a week's worth of clothes in a carry-on-sized bag. I arrive a couple of hours ahead thanks to a shuttle, and I'm usually among the last off of the plane unless I'm short on time to make a connection. I take my time to the next gate or to the baggage carousel, because it's not going to change my timing all that much. Unless I'm among the first to get on the plane, I'm probably going to be standing in the jetway for anywhere from a minute to five minutes anyway, and an extra five or ten minutes at the baggage carousel simply isn't going to kill me, especially since I usually have my notebook or a book with me to pass the time.
I don't stress over this, as it doesn't affect the way I fly. If it goes over badly, and Delta, et al, start advertising that they won't do this, then United may well quietly drop it, the same way every airline experiments with ticket prices for a few hours at a time.
Piracy is unauthorized replication and distribution. A copyright holder can require that those who get something for free get it from a specific source. In this case, downloading it for free from Radiohead is not piracy, while downloading it via eDonkey is piracy.
It's easier to block them all than to pick and choose which ones are OK. However, I've been able to continue using my digital camera both immediately after takeoff and on approach, even when attendants have seen it in my hands with my eye at the viewfinder.
I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.
They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.
Not only no doctype, but... I'm not even a web developer, and the HTML hurts to look at. I don't think FrontPage 98 was that bad.
Then-Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the biggest candidate that he faced, and that was a very, very poor choice.
Schwarzenegger is widely regarded in business circles as savvy and intelligent, and before he made his biggest money in Hollywood, he'd become fairly wealthy in real estate. However, he ran as a moderate Republican and has turned out to be more liberal in many ways than the Democrat that he replaced. At least we get to see most of the bad deals that he makes, as opposed to Davis's multitude of closed-door, secret meetings selling off the state's future.
Indeed. This was old years ago -- before the recall election was even completed. It doesn't help that even when his name did appear, it was spelled incorrectly ("Schwartzenneger" as opposed to the proper spelling, "Schwarzenegger").
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't change my opinion of Gore one way or the other, which is somewhat skeptical but largely ambivalent, but it does confuse me.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
While it's clear that Gore and the IPCC are willing to continue in the face of great controversy, and that climate change may become a major factor in human existence, I'm not seeing anything in their work that improves international relations, reduces armies, or promotes peace. What has happened is that people have become much, much more nervous about certain critical resources, which may have led to more tension over those resources without doing much to alleviate the issues, and this includes almost every Western power. We won't know for another 50 years, IIRC, who the other nominees were, but I'm fairly certain that others might have been more to the point on Nobel's intentions.