Yup, I've heard of people going south of the border to buy new cars and paying the fees to bring them back, saves thousands of the price of a new vehicle. Books are the same thing. $3 or $4 price difference on something less than $10!
Precisely. Put this together with the reports of the RIAA going after 12 and 13 year old kids (and probably younger) that probably have an annual income (allowance) of under $1000/year, and you see how quickly these arguments fall apart.
To me, its only censorship if you prevent someone from expressing their beliefs, opinions, feelings, whatever. Walmart is not doing that. There's too many definitions out there to argue one against the other, so I'm going by my own beliefs. If a private business refusing to sell something that they find offensive is censorship, then I guess I'm pro-censorship.
Wikipedia isn't very consistent: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
Here's the thing. So you think Walmart should be forced to carry media that may offend its customers? What if it offends the owners? Should a little Jewish owned bookstore be force to carry pro-Nazi books?
Please explain to me how Walmart is controlling a bands freedom of expression? I'll say it again. Walmart cannot prevent a group from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Just as they can't prevent the release of another GTA game, or any other media they won't carry because of its content.
It's not censorship. Censorship can only be done by a controlling body. Typically the government, or other official body. Just because Walmart holds a high market share, doesn't mean that artists choosing to release two versions of a song is censorship. If they truly were a monopoly, that might be something worth discussing, but they are far, far from a monopoly in the music world.
No hand sanitizers were the fall back when all the signs posted up about washing your hands before and after entering a patient's room were completely ignored by the vast majority of visitors (and staff). Hand sanitizers are a "better than nothing" measure.
Personally, I'm about 24, but working to reduce that. Sure, there may be exceptions, like Arnold, but its a pretty good rule of thumb. Hopefully there is some sort of appeal process in circumstances where someone is above 30, but is not obese.
I've mentioned it before, but I wouldn't let her touch that camera until this is over. She might "accidentally" delete whatever is recorded on there. As the theatre manager, I wouldn't touch it either. A good defense lawyer might claim I tampered with evidence.
Look at it from the theatre's point of view. They see someone camming, they call the police. She has a story about "only recording 20 seconds for her brother". The police are holding the camera. The theatre owner has no right to view what's on the camera, and even if given permission, a defense lawyer could claim the evidence is no longer reliable. Let her show you, and there's the possibility she'll erase what's on the camera. So, let the law handle it. Keep the camera in proper chain of custody.
They saw her filming the movie, the called the cops. How are they supposed to know what her intent was? Why should they believe her? I certainly wouldn't put the camera back in her hands to prove it. Imagine if she was actually trying to cam the entire movie. Someone sees her, police get called. She tells this sob story of showing her little brother a clip of the action movie. She takes the digital to show you she only recorded 20 seconds and "accidentally" deletes the recording. Send it to court, keep the camera in proper chain of custody.
Why? Because they called the police on someone that was seen recording the movie? As I said above, someone saw someone breaking the law and reported it. The theatre called the police and is going to let the justice system handle it. How is the theatre supposed to know how long she was recording the movie? Why should they believe her? Better to let it be handled in court.
Here's the thing, either the projectionist, or some other staff member (or possibly another movie goer) saw someone with a camcorder recording the movie. They reported it. The theatre did take the appropriate action IMHO, of calling the appropriate authorities. Now, the theatre could, if they believe her story of 20 seconds, could drop the charges. However, I don't blame them for not doing so. If her story holds up, I doubt she'll get more than a minor slap on the wrist, probably in the form of a fine.
At no time should anyone be logged in as root, via a key, password, su -, etc.Yes, it can be a PITA at times, but it makes everything trackable. That's the price you have to pay for due diligence.
To me, the hardest problem to solve is the "command line history of all commands executed as root".
Don't allow any logins as root, period. No keys, the password should be unusable. Then you can log everything done via sudo just as you do with your normal logs.
I recently attended a SANS Summit on Logging. Its not about making it impossible to overwrite logs... there's basically no way to do that. Every suggestion here pretty much has a reply to it about how to get around it. Its not a technical problem to solve, its a policy one.
Given a non-tiny operation, its fairly simple to reach compliance (IANAL). The group that runs the payment gateway is NOT the group that runs the centralized logging system. Use syslog-ng to send the logs to a central server. The payment gateway guys don't get access to the centralized logging server, at least not write access. If you want, store the logs in a DB, and give them read access. They'll still have local logs for troubleshooting and such anyways, so they don't really need it, unless they need to go farther back then the local server logs are stored. Backup the centralized logs regularly to tape, or whatever your backup setup is. If you're paranoid, store checksums in a separate area, email them out, whatever.
You can't make the logs unalterable. What you do is put policies in place to make sure that they are secure if the infrastructure you are logging is compromised, internally or externally. For example, the systems you are trying to protect don't need full access to your logging servers, port 514 (or whatever you pick) is enough.
I don't think I quite agree with what you're saying, but I do agree with the actions being taken. The university is no position do discipline the students as you suggest. The university is doing what any organization should, protect its members' privacy.
True, but I think something like the $100 computer will have more of an effect in the laptop market as opposed to the desktop market. Generally (and a lot of/. ers are the exception) laptops are bought more for portability than for raw power. Whereas the desktop market has the more serious gamers as well as software developers that want more power. Granted, there are exceptions on both sides, but I would think the laptop market would be affected more by cheap hardware.
I believe its commercial with a free (not trial) version. I typically use a combination of DVDFab and DVDShrink, but that's probably because I haven't looked at what they can accomplish on their own. Luckily, I'm not in the US, and don't suffer the same restrictions on downloading this stuff.
Actually, Willow (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096446/) was the first (expand the trivia section). It was a little more rudimentary at the time, but they built on it and that's how they got to the much more impressive scenes in The Abyss.
"but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society."
Funny, I thought the most common first reaction was to hurt them back. Look at two kids on the playground. If one takes a toy/hits the other, the reaction is usually the same thing. Take the toy back or hit the other child. Look at the US reaction to 911. It sure wasn't "what did we do wrong", it was find the bastards who did this and hurt them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I've heard of people going south of the border to buy new cars and paying the fees to bring them back, saves thousands of the price of a new vehicle. Books are the same thing. $3 or $4 price difference on something less than $10!
Precisely. Put this together with the reports of the RIAA going after 12 and 13 year old kids (and probably younger) that probably have an annual income (allowance) of under $1000/year, and you see how quickly these arguments fall apart.
To me, its only censorship if you prevent someone from expressing their beliefs, opinions, feelings, whatever. Walmart is not doing that. There's too many definitions out there to argue one against the other, so I'm going by my own beliefs. If a private business refusing to sell something that they find offensive is censorship, then I guess I'm pro-censorship.
Wikipedia isn't very consistent:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
Here's the thing. So you think Walmart should be forced to carry media that may offend its customers? What if it offends the owners? Should a little Jewish owned bookstore be force to carry pro-Nazi books?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
Please explain to me how Walmart is controlling a bands freedom of expression? I'll say it again. Walmart cannot prevent a group from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Just as they can't prevent the release of another GTA game, or any other media they won't carry because of its content.
Walmart cannot stop an artist from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Therefore, it is not censorship.
It's not censorship. Censorship can only be done by a controlling body. Typically the government, or other official body. Just because Walmart holds a high market share, doesn't mean that artists choosing to release two versions of a song is censorship. If they truly were a monopoly, that might be something worth discussing, but they are far, far from a monopoly in the music world.
No hand sanitizers were the fall back when all the signs posted up about washing your hands before and after entering a patient's room were completely ignored by the vast majority of visitors (and staff). Hand sanitizers are a "better than nothing" measure.
What about your province?
Well, you're numbers are a little off:
Personally, I'm about 24, but working to reduce that. Sure, there may be exceptions, like Arnold, but its a pretty good rule of thumb. Hopefully there is some sort of appeal process in circumstances where someone is above 30, but is not obese.
I've mentioned it before, but I wouldn't let her touch that camera until this is over. She might "accidentally" delete whatever is recorded on there. As the theatre manager, I wouldn't touch it either. A good defense lawyer might claim I tampered with evidence.
Look at it from the theatre's point of view. They see someone camming, they call the police. She has a story about "only recording 20 seconds for her brother". The police are holding the camera. The theatre owner has no right to view what's on the camera, and even if given permission, a defense lawyer could claim the evidence is no longer reliable. Let her show you, and there's the possibility she'll erase what's on the camera. So, let the law handle it. Keep the camera in proper chain of custody.
They saw her filming the movie, the called the cops. How are they supposed to know what her intent was? Why should they believe her? I certainly wouldn't put the camera back in her hands to prove it. Imagine if she was actually trying to cam the entire movie. Someone sees her, police get called. She tells this sob story of showing her little brother a clip of the action movie. She takes the digital to show you she only recorded 20 seconds and "accidentally" deletes the recording. Send it to court, keep the camera in proper chain of custody.
Why? Because they called the police on someone that was seen recording the movie? As I said above, someone saw someone breaking the law and reported it. The theatre called the police and is going to let the justice system handle it. How is the theatre supposed to know how long she was recording the movie? Why should they believe her? Better to let it be handled in court.
Here's the thing, either the projectionist, or some other staff member (or possibly another movie goer) saw someone with a camcorder recording the movie. They reported it. The theatre did take the appropriate action IMHO, of calling the appropriate authorities. Now, the theatre could, if they believe her story of 20 seconds, could drop the charges. However, I don't blame them for not doing so. If her story holds up, I doubt she'll get more than a minor slap on the wrist, probably in the form of a fine.
At no time should anyone be logged in as root, via a key, password, su -, etc.Yes, it can be a PITA at times, but it makes everything trackable. That's the price you have to pay for due diligence.
To me, the hardest problem to solve is the "command line history of all commands executed as root".
Don't allow any logins as root, period. No keys, the password should be unusable. Then you can log everything done via sudo just as you do with your normal logs.
I recently attended a SANS Summit on Logging. Its not about making it impossible to overwrite logs... there's basically no way to do that. Every suggestion here pretty much has a reply to it about how to get around it. Its not a technical problem to solve, its a policy one.
Given a non-tiny operation, its fairly simple to reach compliance (IANAL). The group that runs the payment gateway is NOT the group that runs the centralized logging system. Use syslog-ng to send the logs to a central server. The payment gateway guys don't get access to the centralized logging server, at least not write access. If you want, store the logs in a DB, and give them read access. They'll still have local logs for troubleshooting and such anyways, so they don't really need it, unless they need to go farther back then the local server logs are stored. Backup the centralized logs regularly to tape, or whatever your backup setup is. If you're paranoid, store checksums in a separate area, email them out, whatever.
You can't make the logs unalterable. What you do is put policies in place to make sure that they are secure if the infrastructure you are logging is compromised, internally or externally. For example, the systems you are trying to protect don't need full access to your logging servers, port 514 (or whatever you pick) is enough.
I don't think I quite agree with what you're saying, but I do agree with the actions being taken. The university is no position do discipline the students as you suggest. The university is doing what any organization should, protect its members' privacy.
True, but I think something like the $100 computer will have more of an effect in the laptop market as opposed to the desktop market. Generally (and a lot of /. ers are the exception) laptops are bought more for portability than for raw power. Whereas the desktop market has the more serious gamers as well as software developers that want more power. Granted, there are exceptions on both sides, but I would think the laptop market would be affected more by cheap hardware.
I believe its commercial with a free (not trial) version. I typically use a combination of DVDFab and DVDShrink, but that's probably because I haven't looked at what they can accomplish on their own. Luckily, I'm not in the US, and don't suffer the same restrictions on downloading this stuff.
Try DVDFab.
Sorry, I should have specified I guess, Willow was the first at morphing.
Actually, Willow (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096446/) was the first (expand the trivia section). It was a little more rudimentary at the time, but they built on it and that's how they got to the much more impressive scenes in The Abyss.
"but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society."
Funny, I thought the most common first reaction was to hurt them back. Look at two kids on the playground. If one takes a toy/hits the other, the reaction is usually the same thing. Take the toy back or hit the other child. Look at the US reaction to 911. It sure wasn't "what did we do wrong", it was find the bastards who did this and hurt them.