Nimda on unix would have to attack Apache, Samba, the system password file, the email client, the email server, the firewall software, and the kernel itself.
Actually all it would have to do is find a root exploit somewhere and it has everything. Apache, BIND, WU-FTPD, et.al. have had root exploits in the past. Would it be hard to write a script that hits one machine and starts scanning for more with the same hole, or even one that looked for multiple holes? Nope, assuradly not.
Nimda was assisted by the shear number of people who will click anything emailed to them. The readme.exe file could have attacked UNIX machines as well. And heavan forbid it's not a script kiddie who writes the next one of these. Someone with some talent and forsight could cause some significant damage.
My point is this: This could happen on any platform. It could happen on multiple platforms. It could be just as effective on any platform. You are not safe simply because you run a particular OS. The only way to prevent this to be vigilant in keeping current on patches. PERIOD (Well, besides keeping your machine unplugged and locked inside Fort Knox)
Blame the sysadmin? Sure! The sysadmin who hasn't fixed it on his own machine is a problem. But what if the sysadmin's machine is protected? Is Nimda still his problem? You bet!
Huh? Machines in my shop were patched. We had no problems. The NT machines reacted the same way to Nimda as the Unix machines... Log the request and go on.
You act as if you've used a bug free peice of software. I've used NT, 2K, RH, Debian, Solaris, Digital Unix... and oddly they've all had bugs in production releases. They've all needed patches, or upgrades to prevent attacks. Bugs are a fact of life, and have to be expected.
Sysadmins are paid to maintain these systems, and have responsibilities to stay current on patches. But there's a lot of bad sysadmins out there, and there's a lot of companies who don't want to pay a sysadmin. Folks who were affected by these recent worms need to look at that as the problem and not the software. If your machines got hit by both code red and Nimda, fire your sysadmin, he's worthless. If you don't have one, evaluate the cost and see if it might not be a bad idea to find someone to take care of your systems.
MS isn't to be blamed on Nimda. The hole was known, and they had released a patch for it. Anything beyond that is out of their control, and up to the people you pay to take care of that.
So what happens when one of these things hits apache. It bothers me when people think they're immune, or somehow less vulnerable because they run a particular piece of software. Apache has had problems in the past, and common sense dictates that it will have problems in the future. Could someone write a worm that attacks an older version of Apache? Sure, and as an admin you have to assume that it is going to happen.
If you're hit by one of these things, 99% of the time it's completely your fault. Nimda can be combatted by a patch that's been out for quite a while. Don't blame the OS, don't blame the software. Be a man and take responsibility. Blaming this problem on IIS is simply ensuring that you'll get hit again. Switching to Apache is fine, but you still have to make it a priority to keep up to date on patches.
You have to get to the root of the problem, and that's bad admins.
Hmmm... I like that comparison... MS is the whore who'll let you do anything you want to with them, so long you pony up the cash...
But you can do all this yourself by writing your own software...several times a day...and...if you get tired of that, you can get married to the GPL...but then you just have to put up with that nagging bitch (RMS) all the time.
Actually it's close. At least with non-switched ethernet. Comparing rated speeds of TR and Ethernet is a lot like comparing MHz of PPC and x86 machines. They are different technologies and a lot of different factors contribute to the actual throughput you get, TR works out to be more efficient in most situations, because you eliminate collisions all together.
And... gig ethernet is pretty common in server backends, but I certainly wouldn't say it's very common in office LAN's. If your desktop has gig ethernet, you're a minority.
I used to be a network admin for a IBM shop. We were completely TR, running over type 1 even. Token Ring had one advantage over ethernet, and that was the ability to lock one machine to a particular CICS connection.
Otherwise it's not worth it.
Two speeds, 16/4 Granted, no collisions but you'll get better throughput with 100 Mb ethernet than 16 Mb TR. We'll probably see Gb ethernet more common in offices soon, and that will definately put that arguement to bed.
Ever bought a TR card? I'm not talking ebay either, most companies don't let you do that. When I last bought one, they were running at about $250, each. 10 3c905's were $250 at that time. We were using type-1 o we were using MAU's, find one of those... 8 port MAU would run you close to a grand.
So the logical solution was to pull all the TR and replace it with cat-5. I requested $3000, and set up switched 100bt. This cost us a little more initially, but they haven't had to buy a TR card since, and it is so much simpler to drop a new cable now. Also don't have to worry about the ring falling due to an old card dying on you. That's fun. Take 30 minutes out of everyones day to shut down and then bring machines back one by one...
Sure, we could have ran TR over cat-5, but I should have been fired if I reccommended that. It just makes better sense to run ethernet.
You've all done great. I think everyone appreciates that/. dropped it's standard format for a bit to allow us to get the news, and provided us with a forum to vent our anger and disgust with this horrible act.
I think the forums were the most important thing/. provided us with. I was able to get the news, because I work for a company that provides satellite feeds, so we have AP and Reuters on all our desks. But I still came to/. to be able to tell people what I thought, and a lot of other folks did the same.
I've criticized/. before, hopefully constructively (but sometimes probably not:) because I've been a reader for a long time, and fear change. But I must say, this was one of the site's brightest moments, in some of the darkest times.
I have the linksys also, BEFSR11 - (One port). I picked this up for about $50. Since I already had a few hubs lying around, I didn't need a multi-port router anyway. A couple other things worth mentioning about it are:
Firmware upgrades
Multicast Support
Both static and dynamic IP support (Great for my laptop which has static IP at work)
The only problem I have with it is that you can only forward 10 ranges of ports. I haven't had a problem with this yet, but it could be concievably a problem.
Alternately, you can set up a DMZ and make one machine live on the internet.
Re:You couldn't be more wrong.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Obviously you don't know what it's like to be an American. Your views are jaded, and you underestimate us. Good.
Re:No, You couldn't be more wrong.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
What other options do we have if we don't kill Bin Laden(or whomever)? We could let him be, turn the other cheek so-to-speak, and let him do more things like this. Or we could send Delta Force personell to capture and imprison him, and have his followers taking hostages demanding his release. I'd prefer option A. A good terroist leader is a dead one.
So, Bin Laden is economically opressed, and that is why he resorts to terrorism? Guy's a billionaire, that doesn't add up. Bin Laden is a racist, and is determined to attack any thing not Islam. He's supported islamic uprisings, genetic cleansing and acts of terrorism against his opposition. Just about all terrorism in the world whether it be the KKK, PLO, IRA, or al-Qaeda can be traced to racism.
The US is one of the few places where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc can all live together somewhat peacefully, sure there's friction, and we aren't devoid of racism, but we can go a few days with out firebombing each other.
This exactly what he doesn't want, because he has no tolerance for people who have different beliefs than he does.
Bin Laden isn't a robin-hood for the third world. He's explioting the third world for his own purposes. Would it help if everyone's standard of living was up to that of the US, Canada, Australia and the EU? Yeah, I can't deny that. Is it possible to get everyone there in the next 10, 20, 50 years? No, because you don't just immediately become an economic superpower. There are steps, and these steps involve exploitation of the working class and a huge separation of wealth. The US went through it, Europe did as well. These steps can't be eliminated for other countries. Possibly expidited, but certainly not eliminated.
Are economics the primary cause? I don't believe so. Are they a non-issue? I don't believe that either. What I do believe is that we need to send a message that no matter what your beliefs, or your situation, this is not acceptable to the world. The civilized world (and these people simply are not part of it) needs to let these people know that if they want to be part of our world, to be able to obtain the standards that we have, they need to do it our way. Force seems to be the language they understand best, and I think we should speak their own language.
There is no way to justify what happened on tuesday. Period. It was unforgivable, and must be dealt with.
Are you trying to tell me that there aren't American soldiers who would do this if asked? Or that any arab would? Or to take it one step further, that an American soldier hasn't been told that there is no chance of survial but took on a mission anyway? Besides, which is more disconcerting, knowing, or not knowing your outcome?
Let me go back and quote from my original post: "Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false."
Because these leaders are more willing to kill their own does not make them or their soldiers braver, does not make them unbeatable, and does not mean that we can't intimidate them. We are not dealing with people who are unshakable. I'm guessing that half of Afghanistan is terrified as the FBI follows a trail that appears to be leading back to Bin Laden. I know that the Palistinian leaders were terrified when it was initially said that they were claiming responsibility. No one wants to be on the recieving end of what's going to happen soon, it's not going to fair well for them, I think we all can agree on that.
Re:You couldn't be more wrong.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
The firefighters risked a chance at dying, knowing that even if they did they could almost certaintly save people. The terrorists *planned* to die in order to accomplish their mission, and must have known there was a chance of dying without accomplishing the mission. That is bravery of the very highest level. Yes, their act was despicable, but being evil is not the same thing as being cowardly, and being brave is not the same thing as being good.
What a load of shit. First, the rescue workers knew that the building could colapse at anytime, and there was no garuantee that they could save anyone. Second, these terrorists knew that no matter the outcome they'd be dead, and suffer no (earthly) consequences. This is not the highest act of bravery.
Suicide is not brave. Certainly not if you don't fear death. These terrorists were brainwashed fools, plain and simple. To insist that they were in anyway more brave than the rescue workers is just naive.
You couldn't be more wrong.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Not all terrorists do not fear death. Bin Laden for instance does. He's not the one who's performing the suicide attacks, his minions are. The Taliban, who are harboring Bin Laden, also fear death.
Sure, as I understand it, their belief is that dying for their cause is a straight ticket to heaven, but that doesn't mean they don't fear death. Christians also believe that they will be sent to heaven at their death, but that doesn't erase the fear of death in all of us. And obviously whoever is behind this, fears death, because they haven't taken accountability for it. These people aren't fearless, they're cowards.
The reason that these terrorists are willing to die isn't common to their culture. It's common to any military establishment. The purpose of training soldiers is to get them to do things rational people would not normally do. We train our soldiers this way, and every army in history had to lead men, who had a better chance of dying than surviving into a battle. In war there is an expected loss of life on all sides, everyone involved is aware of this.
Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false. Up to 300 firefighters risked and lost their lives trying to save people at the WTC. They knew they were at risk, and put their lives in harms way to help someone else. This is bravery on a national scale. A few terrorists lost their lives, to perform a dispicable and cowardly act, this is not bravery.
These terrorists do not have the tools or the resolution to win. We can, should and will fight them. America has the resources, resolution, and unity to do this, the commitment from our allies only makes us stronger. These terrorists are weak, and they are cowards. They will fall quickly, and those who have harbored them in the past will be afraid to harbor them in the future.
Yeah, let's sit down and talk with these folks. Let's make the rest of the world aware that we will sit back and take terrorist attacks on our soil. Let's just let the UN handle this, what a competent group.
No. When we find the responsible party, they're going to be in a world of hurt. And anyone contemplating anything like this will think twice.
It's easy for you to preach peace. Your country was not attacked. Your people were not killed. After the dust settles, we will find out who is responsible, and there's not going to be any talking going on. This is an act of war, Perl Harbor II is how my representive described it.
I assure you, no US representives will be asking for peace. And it is their responsibility to their citizens in not doing so. Whether this was an internal terrorist or a foriegn terrorist, this should, and will, be dealt with on our terms.
Which seems to be quite a few knee-jerk posters...
The point of the article was that the broadcast industry wants to profit from the sale of the analog spectrum they agreed to return to the public in 2006. They were given the new spectrum, valued at over 70 billion, for free. So, they want to take our property, and sell it.
In addition the current military spectrum is very much desired. The military would either like to keep it, or obtain the anaolog spectrum from broadcasters. Some folks in congress want to auction off the military spectrum, and the debate is whether the money goes to the military to help convert to another spectrum, or to other programs.
Can't you people read the titles anymore even? SOFTWARE COMPANY IBM, DEC, HP, Apple, Xerox, AT&T are companies that have produced some software, but none of these companies, now or at the time they launched their research labs, depended on software.
Digital is not a software company. They produce some software, but so does HP, IBM, etc, they're a hardware company as well. Microsoft is a company completely dedicated to software, and I don't believe they made any hardware at all in '91. Now they make a few periphials, but nothing to speak of.
Why hasn't any suggested legislation that mandates that after a period of time all published software be released into the public domain?
I do see the place for non-free software, but I think it would be benificial for software to be freely available after it's ability to generate profit is exhausted.
This would serve more than the obvious purposes, it would allow for software be kept in a repository, and not lost after it's served it's purpose. Software is part of our culture today, and unless we actively preserve it, we're going to loose pieces of our history. We certainly can't count on the companies currently responsible for this software to keep around old versions or programs that don't make money.
Wouldn't a national software library serve us well in the future, sure, there'd be a lot of junk there, but the same can be said for the Library of Congress.
While I won't comment on the morality of hunting, one of the biggest dangers to American endangered species is lead and mercury poisoning from pollution and... expended bullets.
Mercury poisioning from expended bullets? Interesting, because mercury isn't associated with either the production or discharge of bullets.
Lead poisioning seems reasonable though, but actually the major initial recipient of lead into the enviorment is the atmosphere. In fact ammunition discharge is not even listed as a contributor to the enviormental lead content, one would assume it is under misc, which contributes.1%. Even if you're still worried about disposal, and entering the enviroment via runoff, us geeks are probably more responsible, as more lead is used in battery production than in ammunition manufacture. Beyond that, the majority of ammunition doesn't go to huters.
Now, that said, Hg and Pb in the enviroment is a serious thing, but the real culprits need to be held accountable, don't draw conclusions because it looks logical, or you saw an indoctrination--er... documentry.
Fact is, with out hunters and sportsmen(and women to be PC). We wouldn't have the natural areas left to pollute today.
Don't believe me? Look at the facts for yourself, check the Envirmental Fate section.
Someone needs to mod this up. The biggest reason this is important is because of training exercises. We've (the US) expended much more munitions in training over the last half century than we have in combat. Hopefully this will continue to be the case. Unfortunately this leaves our training grounds in very bad shape because of many of the munitions used leave harmful residue. It's not just the atmosphere as the article suggests.
Other countries should do it as well, but this isn't a worthless effort regardless, because the largest concern is training.
Well there happens to be a WORKING CGA monitor under my stairs, and that 20Mb drive contains an old BBS I used to run. I may want to fire that up in one of the old 8088's I have and make it live on a 1200 baud modem again someday.
I tend to store old parts in a pile, or closet. You never know when they will become useful. Someday I know I will need to use that old CGA card again, and you can never have too many 20 Mb drives lying around. You don't know that you won't learn how to fix that old burnt out monitor, and that floppy drive that exhibits destructive tendacies may come in handy sometime. Don't let me get started on my colection of power cords and other misc cables.
By all means keep them around. I've found that an excellent place to keep all this is in large rubbermade tubs under the stairs. Out of sight, but easy to get to when you need them, and also relatively dust free.
huh? How can redistributing a service not be redistribution of service? And anyway, you haven't paid for it, in the same way as I haven't paid for the entire salad bar at Pizza Palace just because I bought an "all you can eat" meal.
You aren't redistributing the service. You may be providing a new service by being a proxy. If you can't create any derivitive services, then anyone who has a home office and a highspeed line is in for trouble.
I have paid for it. My ISP advertises always on, high-speed access. They garuntee a specific rate up and down. This is absolutely nothing like an all you can eat buffet. Bandwidth is limited and controlled, not 'all you can use'. I don't pay for a portion of 640K, I pay for 640K.
I don't think it's that simple. If someone were to ask me to download something and burn it to a CD for them, would that be account sharing? So what's the difference between that and someone asking me (my computer) to download something and then forward it to them via a wireless network? If you're running a proxy server or routing gateway, you are handling all the requests from your private network through one machine. You're still using it for personal use, but a personal use is handling requests for friends who don't have a broadband connection.
Sure it may seem like a stretch, and I certainly don't agree with those people who say that the companies who are hurt by it are so large it doesn't matter. But, I don't think this constitutes reselling or redistributing access. It's simply handling requests using your time/bandwidth that you have paid for.
The solution to this will be to pay by the K, but I'm not so sure how they're going to sell us Americans on that idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Nimda on unix would have to attack Apache, Samba, the system password file, the email client, the email server, the firewall software, and the kernel itself.
Actually all it would have to do is find a root exploit somewhere and it has everything. Apache, BIND, WU-FTPD, et.al. have had root exploits in the past. Would it be hard to write a script that hits one machine and starts scanning for more with the same hole, or even one that looked for multiple holes? Nope, assuradly not.
Nimda was assisted by the shear number of people who will click anything emailed to them. The readme.exe file could have attacked UNIX machines as well. And heavan forbid it's not a script kiddie who writes the next one of these. Someone with some talent and forsight could cause some significant damage.
My point is this: This could happen on any platform. It could happen on multiple platforms. It could be just as effective on any platform. You are not safe simply because you run a particular OS. The only way to prevent this to be vigilant in keeping current on patches. PERIOD (Well, besides keeping your machine unplugged and locked inside Fort Knox)
Blame the sysadmin? Sure! The sysadmin who hasn't fixed it on his own machine is a problem. But what if the sysadmin's machine is protected? Is Nimda still his problem? You bet!
Huh? Machines in my shop were patched. We had no problems. The NT machines reacted the same way to Nimda as the Unix machines... Log the request and go on.
You act as if you've used a bug free peice of software. I've used NT, 2K, RH, Debian, Solaris, Digital Unix... and oddly they've all had bugs in production releases. They've all needed patches, or upgrades to prevent attacks. Bugs are a fact of life, and have to be expected.
Sysadmins are paid to maintain these systems, and have responsibilities to stay current on patches. But there's a lot of bad sysadmins out there, and there's a lot of companies who don't want to pay a sysadmin. Folks who were affected by these recent worms need to look at that as the problem and not the software. If your machines got hit by both code red and Nimda, fire your sysadmin, he's worthless. If you don't have one, evaluate the cost and see if it might not be a bad idea to find someone to take care of your systems.
MS isn't to be blamed on Nimda. The hole was known, and they had released a patch for it. Anything beyond that is out of their control, and up to the people you pay to take care of that.
So what happens when one of these things hits apache. It bothers me when people think they're immune, or somehow less vulnerable because they run a particular piece of software. Apache has had problems in the past, and common sense dictates that it will have problems in the future. Could someone write a worm that attacks an older version of Apache? Sure, and as an admin you have to assume that it is going to happen.
If you're hit by one of these things, 99% of the time it's completely your fault. Nimda can be combatted by a patch that's been out for quite a while. Don't blame the OS, don't blame the software. Be a man and take responsibility. Blaming this problem on IIS is simply ensuring that you'll get hit again. Switching to Apache is fine, but you still have to make it a priority to keep up to date on patches.
You have to get to the root of the problem, and that's bad admins.
Hmmm... I like that comparison... MS is the whore who'll let you do anything you want to with them, so long you pony up the cash...
But you can do all this yourself by writing your own software...several times a day...and...if you get tired of that, you can get married to the GPL...but then you just have to put up with that nagging bitch (RMS) all the time.
Ok... back to 'writing software'
Actually it's close. At least with non-switched ethernet. Comparing rated speeds of TR and Ethernet is a lot like comparing MHz of PPC and x86 machines. They are different technologies and a lot of different factors contribute to the actual throughput you get, TR works out to be more efficient in most situations, because you eliminate collisions all together.
And... gig ethernet is pretty common in server backends, but I certainly wouldn't say it's very common in office LAN's. If your desktop has gig ethernet, you're a minority.
I used to be a network admin for a IBM shop. We were completely TR, running over type 1 even. Token Ring had one advantage over ethernet, and that was the ability to lock one machine to a particular CICS connection.
Otherwise it's not worth it.
Two speeds, 16/4 Granted, no collisions but you'll get better throughput with 100 Mb ethernet than 16 Mb TR. We'll probably see Gb ethernet more common in offices soon, and that will definately put that arguement to bed.
Ever bought a TR card? I'm not talking ebay either, most companies don't let you do that. When I last bought one, they were running at about $250, each. 10 3c905's were $250 at that time. We were using type-1 o we were using MAU's, find one of those... 8 port MAU would run you close to a grand.
So the logical solution was to pull all the TR and replace it with cat-5. I requested $3000, and set up switched 100bt. This cost us a little more initially, but they haven't had to buy a TR card since, and it is so much simpler to drop a new cable now. Also don't have to worry about the ring falling due to an old card dying on you. That's fun. Take 30 minutes out of everyones day to shut down and then bring machines back one by one...
Sure, we could have ran TR over cat-5, but I should have been fired if I reccommended that. It just makes better sense to run ethernet.
You've all done great. I think everyone appreciates that /. dropped it's standard format for a bit to allow us to get the news, and provided us with a forum to vent our anger and disgust with this horrible act.
/. provided us with. I was able to get the news, because I work for a company that provides satellite feeds, so we have AP and Reuters on all our desks. But I still came to /. to be able to tell people what I thought, and a lot of other folks did the same.
/. before, hopefully constructively (but sometimes probably not :) because I've been a reader for a long time, and fear change. But I must say, this was one of the site's brightest moments, in some of the darkest times.
I think the forums were the most important thing
I've criticized
Thanks guys. You did great.
Firmware upgrades
Multicast Support
Both static and dynamic IP support (Great for my laptop which has static IP at work)
The only problem I have with it is that you can only forward 10 ranges of ports. I haven't had a problem with this yet, but it could be concievably a problem.
Alternately, you can set up a DMZ and make one machine live on the internet.
Check out the manual for full info.
Obviously you don't know what it's like to be an American. Your views are jaded, and you underestimate us. Good.
What other options do we have if we don't kill Bin Laden(or whomever)? We could let him be, turn the other cheek so-to-speak, and let him do more things like this. Or we could send Delta Force personell to capture and imprison him, and have his followers taking hostages demanding his release. I'd prefer option A. A good terroist leader is a dead one.
So, Bin Laden is economically opressed, and that is why he resorts to terrorism? Guy's a billionaire, that doesn't add up. Bin Laden is a racist, and is determined to attack any thing not Islam. He's supported islamic uprisings, genetic cleansing and acts of terrorism against his opposition. Just about all terrorism in the world whether it be the KKK, PLO, IRA, or al-Qaeda can be traced to racism.
The US is one of the few places where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc can all live together somewhat peacefully, sure there's friction, and we aren't devoid of racism, but we can go a few days with out firebombing each other.
This exactly what he doesn't want, because he has no tolerance for people who have different beliefs than he does.
Bin Laden isn't a robin-hood for the third world. He's explioting the third world for his own purposes. Would it help if everyone's standard of living was up to that of the US, Canada, Australia and the EU? Yeah, I can't deny that. Is it possible to get everyone there in the next 10, 20, 50 years? No, because you don't just immediately become an economic superpower. There are steps, and these steps involve exploitation of the working class and a huge separation of wealth. The US went through it, Europe did as well. These steps can't be eliminated for other countries. Possibly expidited, but certainly not eliminated.
Are economics the primary cause? I don't believe so. Are they a non-issue? I don't believe that either. What I do believe is that we need to send a message that no matter what your beliefs, or your situation, this is not acceptable to the world. The civilized world (and these people simply are not part of it) needs to let these people know that if they want to be part of our world, to be able to obtain the standards that we have, they need to do it our way. Force seems to be the language they understand best, and I think we should speak their own language.
There is no way to justify what happened on tuesday. Period. It was unforgivable, and must be dealt with.
Are you trying to tell me that there aren't American soldiers who would do this if asked? Or that any arab would? Or to take it one step further, that an American soldier hasn't been told that there is no chance of survial but took on a mission anyway? Besides, which is more disconcerting, knowing, or not knowing your outcome?
Let me go back and quote from my original post: "Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false."
Because these leaders are more willing to kill their own does not make them or their soldiers braver, does not make them unbeatable, and does not mean that we can't intimidate them. We are not dealing with people who are unshakable. I'm guessing that half of Afghanistan is terrified as the FBI follows a trail that appears to be leading back to Bin Laden. I know that the Palistinian leaders were terrified when it was initially said that they were claiming responsibility. No one wants to be on the recieving end of what's going to happen soon, it's not going to fair well for them, I think we all can agree on that.
The firefighters risked a chance at dying, knowing that even if they did they could almost certaintly save people. The terrorists *planned* to die in order to accomplish their mission, and must have known there was a chance of dying without accomplishing the mission. That is bravery of the very highest level. Yes, their act was despicable, but being evil is not the same thing as being cowardly, and being brave is not the same thing as being good.
What a load of shit. First, the rescue workers knew that the building could colapse at anytime, and there was no garuantee that they could save anyone. Second, these terrorists knew that no matter the outcome they'd be dead, and suffer no (earthly) consequences. This is not the highest act of bravery.
Suicide is not brave. Certainly not if you don't fear death. These terrorists were brainwashed fools, plain and simple. To insist that they were in anyway more brave than the rescue workers is just naive.
Not all terrorists do not fear death. Bin Laden for instance does. He's not the one who's performing the suicide attacks, his minions are. The Taliban, who are harboring Bin Laden, also fear death.
Sure, as I understand it, their belief is that dying for their cause is a straight ticket to heaven, but that doesn't mean they don't fear death. Christians also believe that they will be sent to heaven at their death, but that doesn't erase the fear of death in all of us. And obviously whoever is behind this, fears death, because they haven't taken accountability for it. These people aren't fearless, they're cowards.
The reason that these terrorists are willing to die isn't common to their culture. It's common to any military establishment. The purpose of training soldiers is to get them to do things rational people would not normally do. We train our soldiers this way, and every army in history had to lead men, who had a better chance of dying than surviving into a battle. In war there is an expected loss of life on all sides, everyone involved is aware of this.
Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false. Up to 300 firefighters risked and lost their lives trying to save people at the WTC. They knew they were at risk, and put their lives in harms way to help someone else. This is bravery on a national scale. A few terrorists lost their lives, to perform a dispicable and cowardly act, this is not bravery.
These terrorists do not have the tools or the resolution to win. We can, should and will fight them. America has the resources, resolution, and unity to do this, the commitment from our allies only makes us stronger. These terrorists are weak, and they are cowards. They will fall quickly, and those who have harbored them in the past will be afraid to harbor them in the future.
Yeah, let's sit down and talk with these folks. Let's make the rest of the world aware that we will sit back and take terrorist attacks on our soil. Let's just let the UN handle this, what a competent group.
No. When we find the responsible party, they're going to be in a world of hurt. And anyone contemplating anything like this will think twice.
It's easy for you to preach peace. Your country was not attacked. Your people were not killed. After the dust settles, we will find out who is responsible, and there's not going to be any talking going on. This is an act of war, Perl Harbor II is how my representive described it.
I assure you, no US representives will be asking for peace. And it is their responsibility to their citizens in not doing so. Whether this was an internal terrorist or a foriegn terrorist, this should, and will, be dealt with on our terms.
Which seems to be quite a few knee-jerk posters...
The point of the article was that the broadcast industry wants to profit from the sale of the analog spectrum they agreed to return to the public in 2006. They were given the new spectrum, valued at over 70 billion, for free. So, they want to take our property, and sell it.
In addition the current military spectrum is very much desired. The military would either like to keep it, or obtain the anaolog spectrum from broadcasters. Some folks in congress want to auction off the military spectrum, and the debate is whether the money goes to the military to help convert to another spectrum, or to other programs.
Can't you people read the titles anymore even? SOFTWARE COMPANY IBM, DEC, HP, Apple, Xerox, AT&T are companies that have produced some software, but none of these companies, now or at the time they launched their research labs, depended on software.
MS is a software company.
Digital is not a software company. They produce some software, but so does HP, IBM, etc, they're a hardware company as well. Microsoft is a company completely dedicated to software, and I don't believe they made any hardware at all in '91. Now they make a few periphials, but nothing to speak of.
Why hasn't any suggested legislation that mandates that after a period of time all published software be released into the public domain?
I do see the place for non-free software, but I think it would be benificial for software to be freely available after it's ability to generate profit is exhausted.
This would serve more than the obvious purposes, it would allow for software be kept in a repository, and not lost after it's served it's purpose. Software is part of our culture today, and unless we actively preserve it, we're going to loose pieces of our history. We certainly can't count on the companies currently responsible for this software to keep around old versions or programs that don't make money.
Wouldn't a national software library serve us well in the future, sure, there'd be a lot of junk there, but the same can be said for the Library of Congress.
While I won't comment on the morality of hunting, one of the biggest dangers to American endangered species is lead and mercury poisoning from pollution and... expended bullets.
.1%. Even if you're still worried about disposal, and entering the enviroment via runoff, us geeks are probably more responsible, as more lead is used in battery production than in ammunition manufacture. Beyond that, the majority of ammunition doesn't go to huters.
Mercury poisioning from expended bullets? Interesting, because mercury isn't associated with either the production or discharge of bullets.
Lead poisioning seems reasonable though, but actually the major initial recipient of lead into the enviorment is the atmosphere. In fact ammunition discharge is not even listed as a contributor to the enviormental lead content, one would assume it is under misc, which contributes
Now, that said, Hg and Pb in the enviroment is a serious thing, but the real culprits need to be held accountable, don't draw conclusions because it looks logical, or you saw an indoctrination--er... documentry.
Fact is, with out hunters and sportsmen(and women to be PC). We wouldn't have the natural areas left to pollute today.
Don't believe me? Look at the facts for yourself, check the Envirmental Fate section.
Lead
Mercury
Someone needs to mod this up. The biggest reason this is important is because of training exercises. We've (the US) expended much more munitions in training over the last half century than we have in combat. Hopefully this will continue to be the case. Unfortunately this leaves our training grounds in very bad shape because of many of the munitions used leave harmful residue. It's not just the atmosphere as the article suggests.
Other countries should do it as well, but this isn't a worthless effort regardless, because the largest concern is training.
Well there happens to be a WORKING CGA monitor under my stairs, and that 20Mb drive contains an old BBS I used to run. I may want to fire that up in one of the old 8088's I have and make it live on a 1200 baud modem again someday.
I tend to store old parts in a pile, or closet. You never know when they will become useful. Someday I know I will need to use that old CGA card again, and you can never have too many 20 Mb drives lying around. You don't know that you won't learn how to fix that old burnt out monitor, and that floppy drive that exhibits destructive tendacies may come in handy sometime. Don't let me get started on my colection of power cords and other misc cables.
By all means keep them around. I've found that an excellent place to keep all this is in large rubbermade tubs under the stairs. Out of sight, but easy to get to when you need them, and also relatively dust free.
Good Christ! That's nearly as many times as Redhat has changed their direcory structure! :p
I have paid for it. My ISP advertises always on, high-speed access. They garuntee a specific rate up and down. This is absolutely nothing like an all you can eat buffet. Bandwidth is limited and controlled, not 'all you can use'. I don't pay for a portion of 640K, I pay for 640K.
Sure it may seem like a stretch, and I certainly don't agree with those people who say that the companies who are hurt by it are so large it doesn't matter. But, I don't think this constitutes reselling or redistributing access. It's simply handling requests using your time/bandwidth that you have paid for.
The solution to this will be to pay by the K, but I'm not so sure how they're going to sell us Americans on that idea.