With the attitude that anyone who doesn't know which TCP ports to leave open, and which UDP ports to block is "stupid", you probably won't go real far in life.
Does an electrician call his customers "stupid consumers" because they don't want to know what the guts of a three-way switch looks like, or understand the intricacies of the NEC? Does your lawyer call you stupid because you don't understand the subtleties of the statute of frauds or the parole evidence rule? How about your mechanic? If you need to take your car to the shop to have the injectors serviced, or the tranny flushed, does that mean you don't deserve a car?
Of course not. Professionals in all walks of life make all of our lives easier, because no matter how smart you think you are, you can't know or do everything in the post industrial age. So why is the attitude that anyone who can't admin their own network is an id10t acceptable in hobbyist geek circles? If you ever want to be succesful in a position somewhat higher than help desk monkey, you'll remember that the next time you're tempted to refer to someone as a "luser".
It would probably just lead to a more uniform distribution of exploits. Every easily exploitable vulnerability would be, regardless of operating system, since focusing on any one OS would be less productive.
Your argument doesn't make sense. No one has ever claimed that the number of exploits in the wild scales linierly with the installbase. There's plenty of vulnerabilities in OS X and enough of them are remotely exploitable that a virus could certainly be written for OS X, if anyone cared enough. If OS X had 50 times the market share, more people would care, and there would be exploits of these vulnerabilities in the wild. Douchbag spammers building botnets just aren't going to waste time on viruses and trojans that will only run on 5% of the systems out there.
The security needs of a computer not attached to a network are very different than a computer directly attached to the Internet, just as the hardware needs are. When you got DSL you needed to buy a modem right? So, why not a router or firewall, too? Is Windows inferior because all Windows machines don't come with built in DSL modems?
The author of that article is also way off base. Windows now installs with the firewall on by default. The author also acknowledges that his SO's computer is old, and he doesn't mention the version of Windows, so I assume that's old too. So why is the title, "Why Does Windows Still Suck?"
While Microsoft will have nothing of the sort, unless they've lied through their teeth, yet the US Government still will used hundreds of thousands of instances of Windows on PC's throughout countless bureaus.
Actually, Windows 2000 SP3 has an EAL 4 Certification as well. You'll probably criticize MS for using the CAPP profile, but the article doesn't mention what profile Red Hat will be targeting.
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animal testing is more controversial than stem cells? Have you been spending all of your time at PETA meetings?
If you can't make a distiction between human life and animals, then I feel for you. BTW, there's more than one source for stem cells, including abortions and fetuses created specifically for that purpose. But, I guess I'm the "idiot".
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
So where is it? Before implantation? After implantation? Birth? After the cord is cut? Once the kid stops breast feeding?
The executive order DOES say precisely what I said it says though. It's just that, as usual, Bush does not have good command of English. So what he meant to say doesn't match what he actually said. Care to produce a quote to back that up?
We don't pass laws against all immoral activity in this country. Whether or not people "should" do something is not always the relevant test. I could say quite objectively that people shouldn't smoke, but it isn't illegal, nor should it be. The fact is that there is an ongoing debate about stem cells, and there's no good reason why my tax dollars sould go to pay for what is (whether or not you want to admit it) extremely controversial research.
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses.
Even atheists have morals and ethics. There's an ethical dilemna posed by embryonic stem cell research and President Bush made a compromise between disallowing all funding, and allowing federal funding for unlimited destruction of potential human life. You can hate Bush all you like, but you can't deny that this dilemna exists, even apart from religious belief. If Bush was the zealot you seem to believe, he would have simply banned stem cell research altogether.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The NIH stem cell funding FAQ might help you out with some of your misconceptions. Past funding is of no consequence. The prohibition only applies to current funding.
Q: I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university-funded laboratory to do this work?
A: You may do the derivation in your university laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently charge all direct costs of doing the derivation to a non-federal funding source and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of allocating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that this activity's appropriate facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are charged to non-federal accounts.
Q: I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university-funded laboratory to do this work?
A: You may do the derivation in your university laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently charge all direct costs of doing the derivation to a non-federal funding source and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of allocating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that this activity's appropriate facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are charged to non-federal accounts.
Except that this is intended to replace other sources of energy. If these go into wide use then all the stuff in your house will be using energy from the sun instead of energy from a nuclear or coal powerplant. The powerplant that otherwise would be powering your house will be shut down, and there will be less net heat released.
While our founding fathers recognized the abuses that were possible from a powerful government and put safeguards into our constitution to protect us from the kinds of abuses they could see in the 18th century, they did not foresee the rise of corporate power in America.
Whether our founding fathers did or didn't foresee corporate power is irrelevant. Most of the remaining laws from those smart gentlemen are in the form of the Constitution which (rightly) only applies to activities of the government, and prior to some debateable Supreme Court decisions it didn't even apply to state governments. So, even if there were an amendment in the Bill of Rights explicitly granting you privacy it would affect private employers at all.
However, nothing in the Constitution would prevent a state from passing privacy legislation that would protect employee privacy. That's the beauty of the system that our founding fathers created.
You don't know exactly what happened at Abu Graib any more than the poster you're replying to, so how do you know there was rape going on? Is it splitting hairs to try and talk about facts instead of speculation? Maybe the problem is how you choose your role models.
I see from your.sig that you've watched Fahrenheit 911 at least one too many times. You might be interested in this page (although you'll probably say he's splitting hairs), but you should at least know the origin of the quote you're using:
The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.
By your logic it's actually far too much. Since the countries we are sending aid to now send zero aid to us, and could likely never afford to send any amount that would be really useful there will be no return on our investment. If we really want to make sure we'll be taken care of when we are in similar need, we'd be better off investing the money we use for foreign aid.
Skydivers who don't put safety first are simply morons with parachutes. I SCUBA dive, which is a similarly risky passtime. Like SCUBA skydiving is very safe when done properly and the correct precautions are taken. There's no reason to add hazard to an already dangerous activity. I hope that when you owned your own plane you complied with any mandatory AD's. If not, shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I invert a trash can on top of it?
Since when is conversion amoral? The right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work is a right of ownership.
With the attitude that anyone who doesn't know which TCP ports to leave open, and which UDP ports to block is "stupid", you probably won't go real far in life.
Does an electrician call his customers "stupid consumers" because they don't want to know what the guts of a three-way switch looks like, or understand the intricacies of the NEC? Does your lawyer call you stupid because you don't understand the subtleties of the statute of frauds or the parole evidence rule? How about your mechanic? If you need to take your car to the shop to have the injectors serviced, or the tranny flushed, does that mean you don't deserve a car?
Of course not. Professionals in all walks of life make all of our lives easier, because no matter how smart you think you are, you can't know or do everything in the post industrial age. So why is the attitude that anyone who can't admin their own network is an id10t acceptable in hobbyist geek circles? If you ever want to be succesful in a position somewhat higher than help desk monkey, you'll remember that the next time you're tempted to refer to someone as a "luser".
Bullshit. The current default install of XP enables the firewall by default.
It would probably just lead to a more uniform distribution of exploits. Every easily exploitable vulnerability would be, regardless of operating system, since focusing on any one OS would be less productive.
Your argument doesn't make sense. No one has ever claimed that the number of exploits in the wild scales linierly with the installbase. There's plenty of vulnerabilities in OS X and enough of them are remotely exploitable that a virus could certainly be written for OS X, if anyone cared enough. If OS X had 50 times the market share, more people would care, and there would be exploits of these vulnerabilities in the wild. Douchbag spammers building botnets just aren't going to waste time on viruses and trojans that will only run on 5% of the systems out there.
The security needs of a computer not attached to a network are very different than a computer directly attached to the Internet, just as the hardware needs are. When you got DSL you needed to buy a modem right? So, why not a router or firewall, too? Is Windows inferior because all Windows machines don't come with built in DSL modems?
The author of that article is also way off base. Windows now installs with the firewall on by default. The author also acknowledges that his SO's computer is old, and he doesn't mention the version of Windows, so I assume that's old too. So why is the title, "Why Does Windows Still Suck?"
The most important sentence in that FAQ is:
"But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools."
Slashdotter's would do well to remember that, next time they want to cry, "censorship."
While Microsoft will have nothing of the sort, unless they've lied through their teeth, yet the US Government still will used hundreds of thousands of instances of Windows on PC's throughout countless bureaus.
Actually, Windows 2000 SP3 has an EAL 4 Certification as well. You'll probably criticize MS for using the CAPP profile, but the article doesn't mention what profile Red Hat will be targeting.
Darth Vader == Dark Father
IVF isn't controversial at all.
I say, "What rock do you live under?"
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animal testing is more controversial than stem cells? Have you been spending all of your time at PETA meetings?
If you can't make a distiction between human life and animals, then I feel for you. BTW, there's more than one source for stem cells, including abortions and fetuses created specifically for that purpose. But, I guess I'm the "idiot".
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
So where is it? Before implantation? After implantation? Birth? After the cord is cut? Once the kid stops breast feeding?
The executive order DOES say precisely what I said it says though. It's just that, as usual, Bush does not have good command of English. So what he meant to say doesn't match what he actually said.
Care to produce a quote to back that up?
We don't pass laws against all immoral activity in this country. Whether or not people "should" do something is not always the relevant test. I could say quite objectively that people shouldn't smoke, but it isn't illegal, nor should it be. The fact is that there is an ongoing debate about stem cells, and there's no good reason why my tax dollars sould go to pay for what is (whether or not you want to admit it) extremely controversial research.
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses.
Even atheists have morals and ethics. There's an ethical dilemna posed by embryonic stem cell research and President Bush made a compromise between disallowing all funding, and allowing federal funding for unlimited destruction of potential human life. You can hate Bush all you like, but you can't deny that this dilemna exists, even apart from religious belief. If Bush was the zealot you seem to believe, he would have simply banned stem cell research altogether.
No, you're wrong, and a quick look at the NIH stem cell funding FAQ confirms it.
Except that this is intended to replace other sources of energy. If these go into wide use then all the stuff in your house will be using energy from the sun instead of energy from a nuclear or coal powerplant. The powerplant that otherwise would be powering your house will be shut down, and there will be less net heat released.
They will have assumed that since these messages went direct from blackberry to blackberry without using any company resources...
No company resources? Who paid for the Blackberrys?
While our founding fathers recognized the abuses that were possible from a powerful government and put safeguards into our constitution to protect us from the kinds of abuses they could see in the 18th century, they did not foresee the rise of corporate power in America.
Whether our founding fathers did or didn't foresee corporate power is irrelevant. Most of the remaining laws from those smart gentlemen are in the form of the Constitution which (rightly) only applies to activities of the government, and prior to some debateable Supreme Court decisions it didn't even apply to state governments. So, even if there were an amendment in the Bill of Rights explicitly granting you privacy it would affect private employers at all.
However, nothing in the Constitution would prevent a state from passing privacy legislation that would protect employee privacy. That's the beauty of the system that our founding fathers created.
I see from your
Some contemporary coverage might help you with the context.
By your logic it's actually far too much. Since the countries we are sending aid to now send zero aid to us, and could likely never afford to send any amount that would be really useful there will be no return on our investment. If we really want to make sure we'll be taken care of when we are in similar need, we'd be better off investing the money we use for foreign aid.
Skydivers who don't put safety first are simply morons with parachutes. I SCUBA dive, which is a similarly risky passtime. Like SCUBA skydiving is very safe when done properly and the correct precautions are taken. There's no reason to add hazard to an already dangerous activity. I hope that when you owned your own plane you complied with any mandatory AD's. If not, shame on you.
Actually, the launching rail only functioned as a runway for the 1903 Flyer.
You can even get DirecTV on your boat.