That's a relatively new definition, and it shows that the BSA brainwashing is working. Remember, dictionaries don't dictate meaning, they catalog how words are being used.
I got to your comment and was pretty disappointed. My fault for trusting a Slashdot headline, but "Droid" is a particular line of Android phones from Verizon (the kind I have, incidentally.) So I guess this is useless to me.
If we had freedom no knock warrants would not exist. You come through the door unannounced, I should be legally in the clear when I send as much lead as I can in your direction at high velocity.
I believe that actually is the case - 2nd and 4th amendments and all.
But I think the people executing said warrants are likely to have a lot more lead to send back. And they should be legally in the clear when they turn you into pink mist - self defense and all....
The Constitution is irrelevant once the police go before a judge and say that they announced themselves. Doesn't matter if they did announce, of course, as its their word against yours and they're considered more believable.
That said, self-defense should not apply to the person breaking down someone's door. If it were anyone but the police, it sure wouldn't.
You've described Rogue fairly well. Unfortunately, "like" is a highly subjective term. "Roguelike" will be defined and redefined by the common usage, just like other words that are used incorrectly ("literally", "ironic", "peruse", and "nonplussed" spring to mind.)
I inferred that this was for an on-call schedule only (per the OP). Though not inconceivable, it seems really unlikely that this is going to have patient data.
If this is really just hosting a calendar, why even host it on the hospital network at all? Get a $6/mo virtual host somewhere to run the calendar and avoid all of the HIPAA sludge entirely.
It's an academic hospital, and the server was purchased to support faculty. Most academic environments are pretty loose with the "rogue server" issues, and faculty usually get what they want. The only WTF here is that IT wouldn't do this for them (assuming they asked, which is a pretty big assumption, frankly.)
NIPSOM doesn't allow wiping of drives which have had classified data on it. The only approved disposal method is physical destruction. This is not to say that the data would otherwise be recoverable--it is to say that they want there to be no chance of recovering data from those atoms without breaking the known laws of physics.
You can own a copy of the music. That's why it's called "copyright." In fact, absent a license that I've agreed to, that's exactly what I own when I buy a CD. A copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder.
Two counter-examples: The Dell Mini-10 (netbook) has a very accessible mini-pci slot for the wifi card. The Alienware m11x has a slightly less accessible one (in that you have to unscrew 8 screws instead of 2.)
I'm mostly just nitpicking because of the absolute (100%) you used. It reminds me of the occasional case of a Slashdot editor lamenting (as an editorial to a submission) that 'all sites don't use ssl'--when Slashdot doesn't use SSL.
You're right--I was getting a few things confused.
IE6 supports SAN on XP and above--and I believe on some lower versions of Windows, though I'm not really inclined to go see exactly which version first gained that support.
IE6 does not support SNI, which is somewhat irrelevant since the support has to come from the system libraries--which XP doesn't support. IE6 doesn't run on Vista (natively or in any supported configuration) and IE7+ on Vista+ supports SNI just fine.
That said, SAN certs are quite available to average mortals. Godaddy provides them for $90 to anyone with a credit card, for 5 names. As usual, prepurchase for several years and you get a discount. I purchased one a while back (for sites which have since been decommissioned) and it worked a treat, though since this was replacing 4 self-signed certs and was only for a small group of people, I wasn't worried about legacy compatibility.
For your information, they're also really good about modifications. You buy an n-site cert and can change names/resign until your year is up (or that's how they did it when I bought mine.) Also, you probably visit sites daily which have certs with SAN--for a while there, Godaddy was adding a gratis SAN of www.example.com whenever you purchased a cert for example.com. I don't know if they still do this, though a buddy thinks they still do.
Frankly, SAN was perfect for me. Although it was a tiny bit more expensive than I would have preferred (for my clients), it fit my hosting needs perfectly. I'm not "big enough" to get several IP addresses, but I was hosting about 30 websites for people, 4 of which wanted SSL. I passed the cost onto them, ate the temporal cost required to get everything configured, and everyone was happy.
Yeah, I fell for your little trap of mentioning IE6, which was completely irrelevant but managed to distract me. Since Vista comes with IE7, and XP (not IE6 specifically) is the reason that SNI doesn't work, IE6 doesn't come into play at all. Of course, SAN works fine on both IE6 and Windows XP.
I'm quite disappointed to see that from Google, frankly. The rest are frankly negligible. And you only address SNI, not SAN, which is better supported.
One snarky response (which only addresses SNI, not SAN, the latter of which has been supported for a very long time by Microsoft) deserves another. Maybe if people stopped pandering to IE6 users by playing to the lowest common denominator, they'd drop quite a bit. Besides, at this point, they've got something on the order of 2% market share. And the post to which I replied was specifically addressing people with 10 blogs and only 5 usable IP addresses. Get enough of those guys using the new technology and the chicken/egg problem starts to go away.
Regardless, as I said, SAN is supported all over the place, including IE6. Heck, Windows Mobile 5, notorious for being slow to adopt new tech, supports it.
I assume that the real problem is IE6, because it doesn't support SAN in certs. Absent IE6, all modern browsers should support this 8-year old technology which handily bypasses the issue you are describing.
SNI, probably a better overall solution, doesn't work with Windows XP at all, or older versions of iPhone OS. Once the older platforms die, it's the solution that we should move to.
Server Name Indication has been supported by major browsers for 4 years. Browsers have supported Subject Alternative Name certs (which bypass the need for one IP per name) for nearly 8 years. At this point, the one cert per IP issue should be well addressed.
The main benefit to running as root/system/administrator is that it makes it easier to hide. It's much harder for a process to hide from antimalware tools (which are running as root/system/administrator) if that process is running with lower privileges. For Macs and Linux, it's almost completely irrelevant--so few people run antimalware tools on those platforms that the difference between malware with and without root is inconsequential.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a relatively new definition, and it shows that the BSA brainwashing is working. Remember, dictionaries don't dictate meaning, they catalog how words are being used.
I got to your comment and was pretty disappointed. My fault for trusting a Slashdot headline, but "Droid" is a particular line of Android phones from Verizon (the kind I have, incidentally.) So I guess this is useless to me.
Thanks, guys, for your lovely reporting.
If we had freedom no knock warrants would not exist. You come through the door unannounced, I should be legally in the clear when I send as much lead as I can in your direction at high velocity.
I believe that actually is the case - 2nd and 4th amendments and all.
But I think the people executing said warrants are likely to have a lot more lead to send back. And they should be legally in the clear when they turn you into pink mist - self defense and all....
The Constitution is irrelevant once the police go before a judge and say that they announced themselves. Doesn't matter if they did announce, of course, as its their word against yours and they're considered more believable.
That said, self-defense should not apply to the person breaking down someone's door. If it were anyone but the police, it sure wouldn't.
You've described Rogue fairly well. Unfortunately, "like" is a highly subjective term. "Roguelike" will be defined and redefined by the common usage, just like other words that are used incorrectly ("literally", "ironic", "peruse", and "nonplussed" spring to mind.)
That was my first thought. How many people are losing money due to the outage? I'm surprised Amazon is making light of the situation.
I inferred that this was for an on-call schedule only (per the OP). Though not inconceivable, it seems really unlikely that this is going to have patient data.
If this is really just hosting a calendar, why even host it on the hospital network at all? Get a $6/mo virtual host somewhere to run the calendar and avoid all of the HIPAA sludge entirely.
It's an academic hospital, and the server was purchased to support faculty. Most academic environments are pretty loose with the "rogue server" issues, and faculty usually get what they want. The only WTF here is that IT wouldn't do this for them (assuming they asked, which is a pretty big assumption, frankly.)
"Military wipe spec?" What does that even mean?
NIPSOM doesn't allow wiping of drives which have had classified data on it. The only approved disposal method is physical destruction. This is not to say that the data would otherwise be recoverable--it is to say that they want there to be no chance of recovering data from those atoms without breaking the known laws of physics.
Why don't you do both? Buy the Blu-ray, then download the version you can actually use?
Which is why the Amazon market is a Good Thing for Android.
You can own a copy of the music. That's why it's called "copyright." In fact, absent a license that I've agreed to, that's exactly what I own when I buy a CD. A copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder.
Two counter-examples: The Dell Mini-10 (netbook) has a very accessible mini-pci slot for the wifi card. The Alienware m11x has a slightly less accessible one (in that you have to unscrew 8 screws instead of 2.)
Eh, I kinda just realized that I'm coming off like a jerk. Sorry for my comments.
But now you're falling into the same old trap--conflating identity with encryption.
You can serve up any old cert for any old page. If identity doesn't matter, do it. The site is already broken with regard to identity (if I go to https://www.shellscriptgames.com/ the page I get is actually https://www.gatwood.net/ but with https://www.shellscriptgames.com/ shown in the URL bar.)
I'm mostly just nitpicking because of the absolute (100%) you used. It reminds me of the occasional case of a Slashdot editor lamenting (as an editorial to a submission) that 'all sites don't use ssl'--when Slashdot doesn't use SSL.
The fact is that 99.999% of sites do NOT need rigorous identity checks, but 100% of all websites SHOULD use encryption.
Fun with shell scripts: ShellScriptGames.com [shellscriptgames.com]
FYI, your URL doesn't do https, and if I put https in front of it, I go to a different page.
You're right--I was getting a few things confused.
IE6 supports SAN on XP and above--and I believe on some lower versions of Windows, though I'm not really inclined to go see exactly which version first gained that support.
IE6 does not support SNI, which is somewhat irrelevant since the support has to come from the system libraries--which XP doesn't support. IE6 doesn't run on Vista (natively or in any supported configuration) and IE7+ on Vista+ supports SNI just fine.
That said, SAN certs are quite available to average mortals. Godaddy provides them for $90 to anyone with a credit card, for 5 names. As usual, prepurchase for several years and you get a discount. I purchased one a while back (for sites which have since been decommissioned) and it worked a treat, though since this was replacing 4 self-signed certs and was only for a small group of people, I wasn't worried about legacy compatibility.
For your information, they're also really good about modifications. You buy an n-site cert and can change names/resign until your year is up (or that's how they did it when I bought mine.) Also, you probably visit sites daily which have certs with SAN--for a while there, Godaddy was adding a gratis SAN of www.example.com whenever you purchased a cert for example.com. I don't know if they still do this, though a buddy thinks they still do.
Frankly, SAN was perfect for me. Although it was a tiny bit more expensive than I would have preferred (for my clients), it fit my hosting needs perfectly. I'm not "big enough" to get several IP addresses, but I was hosting about 30 websites for people, 4 of which wanted SSL. I passed the cost onto them, ate the temporal cost required to get everything configured, and everyone was happy.
Yeah, I fell for your little trap of mentioning IE6, which was completely irrelevant but managed to distract me. Since Vista comes with IE7, and XP (not IE6 specifically) is the reason that SNI doesn't work, IE6 doesn't come into play at all. Of course, SAN works fine on both IE6 and Windows XP.
I'm quite disappointed to see that from Google, frankly. The rest are frankly negligible. And you only address SNI, not SAN, which is better supported.
One snarky response (which only addresses SNI, not SAN, the latter of which has been supported for a very long time by Microsoft) deserves another. Maybe if people stopped pandering to IE6 users by playing to the lowest common denominator, they'd drop quite a bit. Besides, at this point, they've got something on the order of 2% market share. And the post to which I replied was specifically addressing people with 10 blogs and only 5 usable IP addresses. Get enough of those guys using the new technology and the chicken/egg problem starts to go away.
Regardless, as I said, SAN is supported all over the place, including IE6. Heck, Windows Mobile 5, notorious for being slow to adopt new tech, supports it.
I assume that the real problem is IE6, because it doesn't support SAN in certs. Absent IE6, all modern browsers should support this 8-year old technology which handily bypasses the issue you are describing.
SNI, probably a better overall solution, doesn't work with Windows XP at all, or older versions of iPhone OS. Once the older platforms die, it's the solution that we should move to.
Server Name Indication has been supported by major browsers for 4 years. Browsers have supported Subject Alternative Name certs (which bypass the need for one IP per name) for nearly 8 years. At this point, the one cert per IP issue should be well addressed.
I agree with you in principle but copyright as it exists today does NOT exist to promote the arts, but to preserve the profits of creators.
Fixed that for you, since otherwise you were begging the question. The point is that the rights should not exist.
If it isn't art, it shouldn't be protected by copyright in the United States.
Absolutely.
The main benefit to running as root/system/administrator is that it makes it easier to hide. It's much harder for a process to hide from antimalware tools (which are running as root/system/administrator) if that process is running with lower privileges. For Macs and Linux, it's almost completely irrelevant--so few people run antimalware tools on those platforms that the difference between malware with and without root is inconsequential.