Oh, so don't return any books than. They're closed. They don't offer any services!
Don't use their internet site either.
This is such BS!
DHCP is the equivalent of my asking for a book at a public library. I ask for an IP *lease*.
The DHCP server decides if it should grant it to me. Further, the FW decides what to do with my packets.
I doubt that any court in the land is going to accept that open WiFi systems are closed by default. Any serious argument and decent legal team is going to mow down that whole thing.
It may technically be against the law, but the DHCP transaction has all the elements of "request" and "acceptance" needed to have explicit permission.
I (my pc) asked, you (your AP) responded and gave me permission (an IP that isn't firewalled.)
With this kind of stupid law, it could be illegal for me to use your drinking fountain outside your business - which is open to the public - *even if you ask!*
have traded personal safety for personal freedoms.
Quibble...
It's not a trade in the way you descibe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security.
When you trade freedom to get security, you don't get either. Why speculate the other way round.
Truely free societies are not less safe than those that aren't free. In fact, I think the risk of an out of control political system is much more risky overall than the risk an open society brings.
So, please don't promote the myth that security and freedom are in opposition to each other. They aren't. (Not trying to dog you here...just complaining in general.)
An open society has more difficulty tracking everyone, and that's *seen* as a risk, but I don't think there's any proof it's true. And overall, the less open society has higher risk, IMHO, from those who control it not having meaningful checks on their power.
The point isn't that the exploit is contrived in the example given.
The point is, however, that I exepect someone to come up with a much less contrived way to exploit the user and this whole "zone" defense thing will revert to the old days of click and infect.
Further, there is a whole host of software that isn't usable for accounts not logged in as admin.
Lastly, many non enterprise networks run each station with local admin privs. To not do this is a pretty big PITA.
In short, the "zone" defence is broken and badly implimented. I almost guarantee that it will be further exploited so that the real exploit will require much less user co-operation than the given example and that further there will likley be wide-spread use of it.
I'm no mondo expert here, so this is more theory than anything...
Granted I see your points about userland confusion...however if this can be exploited in combination with other flaws as we've seen in the past, the "convienience" of keeping userland confusion down will result in a rash of exploits that makes SP2 largely a loss.
Time will tell, but IMHO, often taking the easy road out is a bad decision. Often we create larger problems than simply ripping it all out and doing it right the first time.
I suspect the rub comes from wanting to do it quickly and relatively cheaply. MS wanted an uber patch to point to, to bolster their standing. (I thought XP was the most secure system ever - when it came out...) So it wanted it quickly and for it to be mostly a flawless transition - at least for MS - it seems they were not as concerned with impacts on *other* vendors' software.
Quick, cheap, well-done - pick any two. I think we can see which two were chosen.
Anyway, I'm not basing MS really. I just think this is the group-think of the oganization. I don't think it's going to change in any comprehensive way anytime soon, and the result will ultimately be that MS will pay the piper big-time for its short-sightedness.
"Joe Use might spread a small number of people from his Outlook Express address book (who in turn infect another small number)."
Small?
In the last month, I got flooded by a worm from a subscriber of the cable ISP in Canada - forget the name at the moment...
I was just getting the *bounces* and I got more than 8000 *bounces* in less than 24 hours. (Want to speculate how many actually went through?)
Now why it got stuck on me as the "From" addy when most randomize it for each mail, I don't know. But what I can say is that *small* isn't likely to be the case.
Perhaps what happened to me was an odditiy - perhaps the guy was a spammer and the virus harvested a huge mass of addresses etc. But I can attest that at least in this case it was far from small.
Eventually I prevailed on the ISP to close the guy up - quickly.
IMHO, it's nice they claim to be doing a lot, but the results on the ground indicate otherwise.
Trojans and spyware are a daily problem for me.
For smaller companies I either patch machines by hand (automated script that must be run at each machine) or cough up the cash for a server (PDC only) to run SUS.
Why should SUS require a PDC? I should be able to dedicate any PC with 2000 or XP to handling patch updates.
SUS is a small offer, but it's like Ford saying..."well, sure that Pinto explodes in a rear end collision. But for only $895.00 per passenger we'll sell you this hot clammy fire suit that will protect you. Uh, no, you can't buy it elsewhere."
MS isn't making any real progress staunching the massive flow of exploits. Frankly, I see the numbers going up, not down.
Could someone tell me what MS did during those full code review lockdowns? Did everyone play minesweeper and solitare the whole time? For all good they did, it sure seems that way.
More like your architect put locks that could be opened with a butter knife on the house.
The Architect made all sorts of claims about how great the house was and how they had spent years working on security etc - when in reality a $20 lock from HDepot would have done a very fine job. Yet you get ripped off by the first crook with a screw driver who turns the keyway with it and unlocks your door quick as a wink.
The legal system was INTENDED to adress the economic losses suffered by those buying a product intended for a purpose. If the product doesn't do what a reasonable person would expect or has very bad outcomes then the courts, again, were intended to redress these economic problems.
If my lawn-mower cuts the grass fine, but spews oil everywhere over the outside of my house, then the company that made it would be rightly liable. Same with and OS that is so fabulously insecure and appears to get little real attention to fix said holes in IE.
Further, even "repairing" the defects won't prevent legal action to redress the economic and other damages from problems that result from problems prior to your "patches."
So, though you may think the courts are bad places to solve these problems, that's the very reason civil courts were created. If you want to junk them, I think you're nuts.
When companies like MS are doing everything possible and acting as truely ethical and upstanding citizens of the world, then I'll shed a few tears for the terrible unjustice they suffer. Until then, it's clear to me at least that they are suffering the results of their own poor business plans. Fewer sales and higher legal and compensatory costs.
Oh those Ford Pinto's that exlpode in flames when rear-ended? Don't sue, just don't buy the things...
No, lawsuits are a reasonable way to redress injury caused by faulty product design.
The economic pressure by fewer sales is one too, but especially in monopoly markets, legal instruments may be the only effective way to curtail abuses in a reasonable amount of time.
If you produce crap defective product, expect lower sales AND lawsuits. Both reduce the profit of the company and can be used a lever to induce better behavior. Both are legitimate tools.
Not to dog you...but if it can't pay for itself, then it's not data you *really* need, IMHO.
Sure a loss would be a serious pain but exactly what kind of data would you be losing? (I expect I'll get no answer, but we're all thinking about it...)
Sure, you lose your porn collection, MP3 collection (dang that's like every album ever produced!) or DVD rip collection.
But really, I can't imagine why a hope user with no real profit outcome who can't throw some decent bucks into tape who really, really, really MUST backup their data.
IMHO, you sound like a collector who is a bit too attached to some collection and needs to find a way to pay for said collection storage and backup or find another hobby.
Again, not trying to dog you. I've got a lot of stuff that doesn't get backed up regularly, and I'd be unhappy if I lost it, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. In short, pare down your wish list of files that have to be backed up.
That's why the Kurds were killed when the good old US of A abandoned them to be killed by some of the same millitary aid we shipped to Saddam when he was "the enemy of mine enemy."
We encouraged the Kurds and Shia to "rise up" against Saddam H. The result? We did nothing and many of those people died. Just who was in charge when this happened? George HW Bush.
Finally, nice bait and switch.
This was was authorized as an action against the people/countries behind 9/11 - go read the congressional authorization given to GW Bush - you'll see it didn't authorize force because of the poor oppressed Kurds (or any of Saddams other oppressed population) and it wasn't because of WMD.
The very last and least important item in GWB's reason list was that Saddam was a "bad guy."
If the war was about humanitarian reasons, it should have been "pitched" that way. It wasn't either about it, or pitched as such.
Finally, as sick as I think it is, No, I don't think most Americans would think it worth $2400 a family to invade Iraq. Sad to say. I'm not sure I'd think it was worth it, but for other reasons.
The point is, this war is costing a huge amount. I don't think the USA public signed up as a knowing participant at this level of cost and for these reasons. That will impact the desire of the public to be involved, and stay involved. If the war turns out to be a failure because the US public wouldn't support it, then GWB ought to shoulder the blame, rather than the public as the public was completely misled.
Bug GWB can't seem to figure out any mistakes he's made. (This clearly is a recepie for disaster...)
$200B/250m = ~$800 for each man woman and child. (That's the total USA cost of the war so far, divided by the population of the USA.)
For a family of four, that's $2400 the president is going to have to take out of someones pocket. (What do you want to bet Haliburton isn't going to be paying it?)
That "tax credit" you got last year, $400/family? Well that's long gone by now.
The government is competing against you in the borrowing market, and you're the cosigner on their loan too. What a deal huh?
unreasonable behaviour MAY be the reasonable response to extreme behavior.
I STRONGLY disagree. It is never reasonable to be unreasonable - both in the pedantic sense and in a practical sense.
It would never make moral sense to kill someone elses kids simply because they killed yours, or anyone elses for that matter.
The moral highground we MUST stand for as a nation is that we keep our morals and high priciples even though the "enemy" may not.
Revoking privacy and liberty to stop the bad "evil-doers" just makes us evil and bad too.
Either we believe in liberty and freedom or we don't. If we do, then liberty and freedom should never be abridged. If we don't, lets quit posturing as though we do and say we embrace freedom and liberty *except* when it's inconvienient.
The same arguments apply to free speech. The speech that is MOST IMPORTANT to protect is the speech we find offensive. It's easy to protect speech you agree with, but much harder to allow the angry, hateful and plain wrong SOB to express himself too.
It's a short step from depriving those who are "terrorists" of a fair trial and due process to people just like you and me. If we don't rise up and loudly protest at their treatment, even though we may abhor their thinking and acts then when you and I lose our freedom and liberty, we'll have little to complain about.
As for rectifying mistakes. Sure, we can keep from making the same mistake in the future, we we rarely make whole those who were injured in the past.
Examples? Japaneese internment. Slavery Jim crow laws Mistreatment of the mentally incapacitated and ill Virtual extermination and disenfranchisement of the native indians.
There are dozens and even hundreds of others. Have we paid reparations to black slaves, the victims of jim crow laws, the indians or even come close to repaying the true economic and psychological losses of the Japaneese internment?
No, DAMN NO! It's pretty easy to say - well we'll fix that later. But we don't pay the true costs of our actions impact on those mistreated by those mistakes.
Strive greatly not to make mistakes the first time. Few of us are willing to truely cover the costs of those mistakes later. Myself included.
In a practical world here, capitalism works better. It is not a better system, when individuals are NOT selfish self-interested jerks, to put it kindly.
Perhaps you believe that this world and human nature as it exists today is how it ought to be. If that's so and you don't aspire to better, then fine C is king.
If you believe there is a better way of living and a way to have better individuals internally (i.e. their characters are better) then a socialistic style system is more fair and equitable.
But nice try lumping me as a "socialist." You construct great straw man arguments too!
However, unchecked greed will result in ultimate detriment to yourself and society around you.
A socialist system is, from an altruistic standpoint, more desireable than a greed based capitalistic one.
However, since humans are not really altruistic beings, greed seems to be a better motivator.
But one shouldn't confuse which system works better on imperfect humans with one that is more idalistically pure.
A four course meal is better in virtually all ways than a bowl of dog-food. If all you can accomplish is dog food, by all means eat it - you'll die otherwise. But don't confuse the dog food as a better meal. It isn't.
Read performance is better than a single drive in mirrored situations, in every RAID setup I've seen. In short, the controller should split up read requests to the drives so that reads are NOT read from a single drive, but spread between the drives, so as exactly to improve performance.
Write performance *should* be the same or very close to a single drive, provided both mirror drives are equal in performance, and the controller is able to dispatch the writes simultaneously. (This will depend on the head placement when the write is requested. Since both drives can be reading at different places, there may be some write degredation in comparison to the other drive.)
I suppose as the drives reach saturation request levels, writes could be further depressed, as there wouldn't be much idle time used to optimize write performance. This additional degredation in performance shouldn't be very significant in comparison to a single drive setup. I expect the read performance increase would more than offset the write performance decrease - clearly this all depends on the type of load/applications.
How about this...from one of the creators of the Internet...
Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC
From http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/249325.asp (which has apparently subsequently timed out). See also ``Revisionist Internet History.'' --jsq
Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC's questions about the Net's origins with this e-mail:
VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.
As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.
While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.
We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.
No, I think bio-tech companies DO have something to hide.
Here's my proposal.
If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from the release of genetically modified organisms.
If the risk really is that low, and it's been tested so very well, then getting insurance should be pretty cheap.
We both know that the insurance company would say..."Well yes, that's pretty nice testing and all but there are still a vast number of unknowns." They, and the bio-tech companies all know that there is a lot we really *don't* know and that the potential costs from even minuscule risk could be massive, so neither would want to take on that huge risk.
The side-effect is that I think they dramatically overstate their certainty that these products are perfectly safe. Let's assume it is 99.999999% safe. But what are the impacts of a 0.0000000001% chance event in a worst case scenario. It isn't pretty.
The result is the public is mislead to keep them complacent about the unknown levels of risk and cost should worst case happen.
Pen and Trace warrents don't. Email recipients (email pen and trace) and website (url) destinations don't.
I could list many more. Further, the requirements for getting a warrant have also been lowered, so the Judge has less reason NOT to grant the warrant.
Finally, law enforcement always knows which judges are friendly to their cause. They make sure as possible to get in front of those judges.
So, the only protections you have are those provided in the law. In otherwords, the language law that allows a search warrant is about the only thing that that protects you. When the language is dramatically weakened in terms of the "probable cause" to give one, your rights are dramatically weakened too. Don't expect the judge to protect you, expect the law to require it. If it doesn't, you're screwed.
"I agree. I just don't think terrorism or whatever else is happening will end at that point. IMHO, there'll always be something that some people will be angry about and they'll be looking for someone to blame it on."
True enough...BUT... If you have enough friends in the world, it will be much harder for these people to hurt us. Our real friends will want to assist us in preventing attacks they see as unjust and immoral. Why will they see it this way? Because they see that whatever the cost to us, we'll always do the right thing, not just what's expedient.
Sure, it's utopian. I know it will never happen. Most of the public and nearly all the politians are really selfish, self-centered, morally ugly people. (I really hate saying this, as it makes me seem an eliteist, when I'm not...) But just because reality is morally bankrupt doesn't mean that I and others shouldn't stand up and point out just how bankrupt our government is.
In short, follow the money. Our politians don't do what's right, they do what's profitable.
You're right. We did it at a time when we were trying to keep communism from spreading.
I only rob banks to pay for my kids education.
There's *NO* excuse for treating people badly. There's no excuse for the Abu Graib horror. Once we learn this, the more positively we'll be viewed by the world.
As for how long ago these acts were... How about Rawanda? We did mostly nothing, and largely prevented the UN from doing anything.
Iraq: We persuaded the opposition to Saddam in the GW-1 to rise up. Then what did we do. We let them get slaughtered by Saddam. (Ironic now that we hold up that slaughter as an attrocity by Saddam. Weren't we complicit in the affair?)
Iraq today: We let the country get looted to bedrock. Museums, schools etc. Lawlessness reigns for months. Why, do we have some excuse that we couldn't have seen it coming? No. It's hard to believe that our "leaders" are really that stupid. For anyone with a less than trusting thought about us, the almost inescapable conclusion is that we either didn't care, or planned it that way.
There are many modern examples, but it often takes time for the results of our evil deeds to come to light.
How about dropping support for Pakistan and House of Saud right now. Oh, that would make the reigon unstable and oil prices would be higher than they already are. 'Must prevent economic problems here at home to stay elected. Oh, well, I guess a few more innocent people need to die for our economic well-being and the election needs of some politions. (sp)
There are many ways to demonstrate we have clean hands that don't include attacking nations that pose no serious threat to us.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so don't return any books than. They're closed. They don't offer any services!
Don't use their internet site either.
This is such BS!
DHCP is the equivalent of my asking for a book at a public library. I ask for an IP *lease*.
The DHCP server decides if it should grant it to me. Further, the FW decides what to do with my packets.
I doubt that any court in the land is going to accept that open WiFi systems are closed by default. Any serious argument and decent legal team is going to mow down that whole thing.
It may technically be against the law, but the DHCP transaction has all the elements of "request" and "acceptance" needed to have explicit permission.
I (my pc) asked, you (your AP) responded and gave me permission (an IP that isn't firewalled.)
With this kind of stupid law, it could be illegal for me to use your drinking fountain outside your business - which is open to the public - *even if you ask!*
Common sense hasn't been applied here.
Cheers,
Greg
have traded personal safety for personal freedoms.
Quibble...
It's not a trade in the way you descibe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security.
When you trade freedom to get security, you don't get either. Why speculate the other way round.
Truely free societies are not less safe than those that aren't free. In fact, I think the risk of an out of control political system is much more risky overall than the risk an open society brings.
So, please don't promote the myth that security and freedom are in opposition to each other. They aren't. (Not trying to dog you here...just complaining in general.)
An open society has more difficulty tracking everyone, and that's *seen* as a risk, but I don't think there's any proof it's true. And overall, the less open society has higher risk, IMHO, from those who control it not having meaningful checks on their power.
Cheers,
Greg
If they're not drunk, they'll find some other reason to start plugging people. There are *always* stupid people around, drunk or not.
It's bad enough on the ground. Having it happen at 25K feet seems like a much larger complication.
Sheesh,
Greg
Oh, he had no trouble flying - that crack, I mean cocaine (rich trash) had him higher than a kite!
He just gave up one kind of flying for another. And the NG had the temerity to take exception to that! Humpf!
They should have given him the bronze spoon for his valor! (Or is it the powdered star?)
Cheers
The point isn't that the exploit is contrived in the example given.
The point is, however, that I exepect someone to come up with a much less contrived way to exploit the user and this whole "zone" defense thing will revert to the old days of click and infect.
Further, there is a whole host of software that isn't usable for accounts not logged in as admin.
Lastly, many non enterprise networks run each station with local admin privs. To not do this is a pretty big PITA.
In short, the "zone" defence is broken and badly implimented. I almost guarantee that it will be further exploited so that the real exploit will require much less user co-operation than the given example and that further there will likley be wide-spread use of it.
Cheers,
Greg
I'm no mondo expert here, so this is more theory than anything...
Granted I see your points about userland confusion...however if this can be exploited in combination with other flaws as we've seen in the past, the "convienience" of keeping userland confusion down will result in a rash of exploits that makes SP2 largely a loss.
Time will tell, but IMHO, often taking the easy road out is a bad decision. Often we create larger problems than simply ripping it all out and doing it right the first time.
I suspect the rub comes from wanting to do it quickly and relatively cheaply. MS wanted an uber patch to point to, to bolster their standing. (I thought XP was the most secure system ever - when it came out...) So it wanted it quickly and for it to be mostly a flawless transition - at least for MS - it seems they were not as concerned with impacts on *other* vendors' software.
Quick, cheap, well-done - pick any two. I think we can see which two were chosen.
Anyway, I'm not basing MS really. I just think this is the group-think of the oganization. I don't think it's going to change in any comprehensive way anytime soon, and the result will ultimately be that MS will pay the piper big-time for its short-sightedness.
Cheers,
Greg
"Joe Use might spread a small number of people from his Outlook Express address book (who in turn infect another small number)."
Small?
In the last month, I got flooded by a worm from a subscriber of the cable ISP in Canada - forget the name at the moment...
I was just getting the *bounces* and I got more than 8000 *bounces* in less than 24 hours. (Want to speculate how many actually went through?)
Now why it got stuck on me as the "From" addy when most randomize it for each mail, I don't know. But what I can say is that *small* isn't likely to be the case.
Perhaps what happened to me was an odditiy - perhaps the guy was a spammer and the virus harvested a huge mass of addresses etc. But I can attest that at least in this case it was far from small.
Eventually I prevailed on the ISP to close the guy up - quickly.
Anyway...
Cheers,
Greg
IMHO, it's nice they claim to be doing a lot, but the results on the ground indicate otherwise.
Trojans and spyware are a daily problem for me.
For smaller companies I either patch machines by hand (automated script that must be run at each machine) or cough up the cash for a server (PDC only) to run SUS.
Why should SUS require a PDC? I should be able to dedicate any PC with 2000 or XP to handling patch updates.
SUS is a small offer, but it's like Ford saying..."well, sure that Pinto explodes in a rear end collision. But for only $895.00 per passenger we'll sell you this hot clammy fire suit that will protect you. Uh, no, you can't buy it elsewhere."
MS isn't making any real progress staunching the massive flow of exploits. Frankly, I see the numbers going up, not down.
Could someone tell me what MS did during those full code review lockdowns? Did everyone play minesweeper and solitare the whole time? For all good they did, it sure seems that way.
Cheers,
Greg
No, Forrester was wrong. See this post...9 3&cid=961 4144
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1134
More like your architect put locks that could be opened with a butter knife on the house.
The Architect made all sorts of claims about how great the house was and how they had spent years working on security etc - when in reality a $20 lock from HDepot would have done a very fine job. Yet you get ripped off by the first crook with a screw driver who turns the keyway with it and unlocks your door quick as a wink.
The legal system was INTENDED to adress the economic losses suffered by those buying a product intended for a purpose. If the product doesn't do what a reasonable person would expect or has very bad outcomes then the courts, again, were intended to redress these economic problems.
If my lawn-mower cuts the grass fine, but spews oil everywhere over the outside of my house, then the company that made it would be rightly liable. Same with and OS that is so fabulously insecure and appears to get little real attention to fix said holes in IE.
Further, even "repairing" the defects won't prevent legal action to redress the economic and other damages from problems that result from problems prior to your "patches."
So, though you may think the courts are bad places to solve these problems, that's the very reason civil courts were created. If you want to junk them, I think you're nuts.
When companies like MS are doing everything possible and acting as truely ethical and upstanding citizens of the world, then I'll shed a few tears for the terrible unjustice they suffer. Until then, it's clear to me at least that they are suffering the results of their own poor business plans. Fewer sales and higher legal and compensatory costs.
Just as the founders of the rebublic intended.
Cheers,
Greg
Oh those Ford Pinto's that exlpode in flames when rear-ended? Don't sue, just don't buy the things...
No, lawsuits are a reasonable way to redress injury caused by faulty product design.
The economic pressure by fewer sales is one too, but especially in monopoly markets, legal instruments may be the only effective way to curtail abuses in a reasonable amount of time.
If you produce crap defective product, expect lower sales AND lawsuits. Both reduce the profit of the company and can be used a lever to induce better behavior. Both are legitimate tools.
Cheers,
Greg
Not to dog you...but if it can't pay for itself, then it's not data you *really* need, IMHO.
Sure a loss would be a serious pain but exactly what kind of data would you be losing? (I expect I'll get no answer, but we're all thinking about it...)
Sure, you lose your porn collection, MP3 collection (dang that's like every album ever produced!) or DVD rip collection.
But really, I can't imagine why a hope user with no real profit outcome who can't throw some decent bucks into tape who really, really, really MUST backup their data.
IMHO, you sound like a collector who is a bit too attached to some collection and needs to find a way to pay for said collection storage and backup or find another hobby.
Again, not trying to dog you. I've got a lot of stuff that doesn't get backed up regularly, and I'd be unhappy if I lost it, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. In short, pare down your wish list of files that have to be backed up.
Cheers,
Greg
Sheesh - I can do the math of 200B/250M, but not 800*4 -ugh!
Thanks tho!
Sure, they were worth lots of money.
That's why the Kurds were killed when the good old US of A abandoned them to be killed by some of the same millitary aid we shipped to Saddam when he was "the enemy of mine enemy."
We encouraged the Kurds and Shia to "rise up" against Saddam H. The result? We did nothing and many of those people died. Just who was in charge when this happened? George HW Bush.
Finally, nice bait and switch.
This was was authorized as an action against the people/countries behind 9/11 - go read the congressional authorization given to GW Bush - you'll see it didn't authorize force because of the poor oppressed Kurds (or any of Saddams other oppressed population) and it wasn't because of WMD.
The very last and least important item in GWB's reason list was that Saddam was a "bad guy."
If the war was about humanitarian reasons, it should have been "pitched" that way. It wasn't either about it, or pitched as such.
Finally, as sick as I think it is, No, I don't think most Americans would think it worth $2400 a family to invade Iraq. Sad to say. I'm not sure I'd think it was worth it, but for other reasons.
The point is, this war is costing a huge amount. I don't think the USA public signed up as a knowing participant at this level of cost and for these reasons. That will impact the desire of the public to be involved, and stay involved. If the war turns out to be a failure because the US public wouldn't support it, then GWB ought to shoulder the blame, rather than the public as the public was completely misled.
Bug GWB can't seem to figure out any mistakes he's made. (This clearly is a recepie for disaster...)
Cheers,
Greg
Yup, someone needs to do the math on this.
$200B/250m = ~$800 for each man woman and child. (That's the total USA cost of the war so far, divided by the population of the USA.)
For a family of four, that's $2400 the president is going to have to take out of someones pocket. (What do you want to bet Haliburton isn't going to be paying it?)
That "tax credit" you got last year, $400/family? Well that's long gone by now.
The government is competing against you in the borrowing market, and you're the cosigner on their loan too. What a deal huh?
Cheers,
Greg
unreasonable behaviour MAY be the reasonable response to extreme behavior.
I STRONGLY disagree. It is never reasonable to be unreasonable - both in the pedantic sense and in a practical sense.
It would never make moral sense to kill someone elses kids simply because they killed yours, or anyone elses for that matter.
The moral highground we MUST stand for as a nation is that we keep our morals and high priciples even though the "enemy" may not.
Revoking privacy and liberty to stop the bad "evil-doers" just makes us evil and bad too.
Either we believe in liberty and freedom or we don't. If we do, then liberty and freedom should never be abridged. If we don't, lets quit posturing as though we do and say we embrace freedom and liberty *except* when it's inconvienient.
The same arguments apply to free speech. The speech that is MOST IMPORTANT to protect is the speech we find offensive. It's easy to protect speech you agree with, but much harder to allow the angry, hateful and plain wrong SOB to express himself too.
It's a short step from depriving those who are "terrorists" of a fair trial and due process to people just like you and me. If we don't rise up and loudly protest at their treatment, even though we may abhor their thinking and acts then when you and I lose our freedom and liberty, we'll have little to complain about.
As for rectifying mistakes. Sure, we can keep from making the same mistake in the future, we we rarely make whole those who were injured in the past.
Examples?
Japaneese internment.
Slavery
Jim crow laws
Mistreatment of the mentally incapacitated and ill
Virtual extermination and disenfranchisement of the native indians.
There are dozens and even hundreds of others. Have we paid reparations to black slaves, the victims of jim crow laws, the indians or even come close to repaying the true economic and psychological losses of the Japaneese internment?
No, DAMN NO! It's pretty easy to say - well we'll fix that later. But we don't pay the true costs of our actions impact on those mistreated by those mistakes.
Strive greatly not to make mistakes the first time. Few of us are willing to truely cover the costs of those mistakes later. Myself included.
Cheers,
Greg
Your reading comprehension must be lacking.
In a practical world here, capitalism works better. It is not a better system, when individuals are NOT selfish self-interested jerks, to put it kindly.
Perhaps you believe that this world and human nature as it exists today is how it ought to be. If that's so and you don't aspire to better, then fine C is king.
If you believe there is a better way of living and a way to have better individuals internally (i.e. their characters are better) then a socialistic style system is more fair and equitable.
But nice try lumping me as a "socialist." You construct great straw man arguments too!
I should note IHBT. HAND.
Cheers,
Greg
You are welcome to wallow in your greed.
However, unchecked greed will result in ultimate detriment to yourself and society around you.
A socialist system is, from an altruistic standpoint, more desireable than a greed based capitalistic one.
However, since humans are not really altruistic beings, greed seems to be a better motivator.
But one shouldn't confuse which system works better on imperfect humans with one that is more idalistically pure.
A four course meal is better in virtually all ways than a bowl of dog-food. If all you can accomplish is dog food, by all means eat it - you'll die otherwise. But don't confuse the dog food as a better meal. It isn't.
Cheers,
Greg
Oh that I might have your eloquence.
Well said.
Bravo! (and thanks!)
Cheers,
Greg
Read performance is better than a single drive in mirrored situations, in every RAID setup I've seen. In short, the controller should split up read requests to the drives so that reads are NOT read from a single drive, but spread between the drives, so as exactly to improve performance.
Write performance *should* be the same or very close to a single drive, provided both mirror drives are equal in performance, and the controller is able to dispatch the writes simultaneously. (This will depend on the head placement when the write is requested. Since both drives can be reading at different places, there may be some write degredation in comparison to the other drive.)
I suppose as the drives reach saturation request levels, writes could be further depressed, as there wouldn't be much idle time used to optimize write performance. This additional degredation in performance shouldn't be very significant in comparison to a single drive setup. I expect the read performance increase would more than offset the write performance decrease - clearly this all depends on the type of load/applications.
Cheers,
Greg
How about this...from one of the creators of the Internet...
Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC
From http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/249325.asp (which has apparently subsequently timed out). See also ``Revisionist Internet History.'' --jsq
Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC's questions about the Net's origins with this e-mail:
VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.
As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.
While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.
We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.
No, I think bio-tech companies DO have something to hide.
Here's my proposal.
If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from the release of genetically modified organisms.
If the risk really is that low, and it's been tested so very well, then getting insurance should be pretty cheap.
We both know that the insurance company would say..."Well yes, that's pretty nice testing and all but there are still a vast number of unknowns." They, and the bio-tech companies all know that there is a lot we really *don't* know and that the potential costs from even minuscule risk could be massive, so neither would want to take on that huge risk.
The side-effect is that I think they dramatically overstate their certainty that these products are perfectly safe. Let's assume it is 99.999999% safe. But what are the impacts of a 0.0000000001% chance event in a worst case scenario. It isn't pretty.
The result is the public is mislead to keep them complacent about the unknown levels of risk and cost should worst case happen.
So, yes, they DO have something to hide.
Cheers,
Greg
Pen and Trace warrents don't.
Email recipients (email pen and trace) and website (url) destinations don't.
I could list many more. Further, the requirements for getting a warrant have also been lowered, so the Judge has less reason NOT to grant the warrant.
Finally, law enforcement always knows which judges are friendly to their cause. They make sure as possible to get in front of those judges.
So, the only protections you have are those provided in the law. In otherwords, the language law that allows a search warrant is about the only thing that that protects you. When the language is dramatically weakened in terms of the "probable cause" to give one, your rights are dramatically weakened too. Don't expect the judge to protect you, expect the law to require it. If it doesn't, you're screwed.
Cheers,
Greg
"I agree. I just don't think terrorism or whatever else is happening will end at that point. IMHO, there'll always be something that some people will be angry about and they'll be looking for someone to blame it on."
True enough...BUT...
If you have enough friends in the world, it will be much harder for these people to hurt us. Our real friends will want to assist us in preventing attacks they see as unjust and immoral. Why will they see it this way? Because they see that whatever the cost to us, we'll always do the right thing, not just what's expedient.
Sure, it's utopian. I know it will never happen. Most of the public and nearly all the politians are really selfish, self-centered, morally ugly people. (I really hate saying this, as it makes me seem an eliteist, when I'm not...) But just because reality is morally bankrupt doesn't mean that I and others shouldn't stand up and point out just how bankrupt our government is.
In short, follow the money. Our politians don't do what's right, they do what's profitable.
Cheers,
Greg
You're right. We did it at a time when we were trying to keep communism from spreading.
I only rob banks to pay for my kids education.
There's *NO* excuse for treating people badly. There's no excuse for the Abu Graib horror. Once we learn this, the more positively we'll be viewed by the world.
As for how long ago these acts were...
How about Rawanda? We did mostly nothing, and largely prevented the UN from doing anything.
Iraq: We persuaded the opposition to Saddam in the GW-1 to rise up. Then what did we do. We let them get slaughtered by Saddam. (Ironic now that we hold up that slaughter as an attrocity by Saddam. Weren't we complicit in the affair?)
Iraq today: We let the country get looted to bedrock. Museums, schools etc. Lawlessness reigns for months. Why, do we have some excuse that we couldn't have seen it coming? No. It's hard to believe that our "leaders" are really that stupid. For anyone with a less than trusting thought about us, the almost inescapable conclusion is that we either didn't care, or planned it that way.
There are many modern examples, but it often takes time for the results of our evil deeds to come to light.
How about dropping support for Pakistan and House of Saud right now. Oh, that would make the reigon unstable and oil prices would be higher than they already are. 'Must prevent economic problems here at home to stay elected. Oh, well, I guess a few more innocent people need to die for our economic well-being and the election needs of some politions. (sp)
There are many ways to demonstrate we have clean hands that don't include attacking nations that pose no serious threat to us.
Cheers,
Greg