If the Tao is great, then the box is stable. If the box is stable, then the server is secure. If the server is secure, then the data is safe. If the data is safe, then the users are happy.
If the post is massive, then the author has no life.:)
Although many other people have already mentioned "RunAs" for running programs, I should point out that you can't run explorer this way, at least in Windows 2000. Depending on what this guy "needs to" do as Administrator, there may or may not be a way to do it in Windows proper.
To do file management, including changing permissions and the like, you can use DOS (the command prompt can be run with RunAs). You can run the "cacls" command from the command prompt to change permissions, and I assume you know how to move files, make directories, etc.
When will people get that email is not secure. Its the digital equivalent of a postcard, but idiots still email credit card numbers and worse.
The problem is that _nothing_ is secure once it's decrypted. Even if the e-mail had been sent encrypted and with "DO NOT PUBLISH" written on every other line, some random friend might still have sent the body of the e-mail (after decrypting it to read it) to a friend of theirs, who then forwards it to a friend who has a webpage... and so on. The same applies to written letters as well (ever heard of the "Xerox machine"?)
What's really amazing to me is some of those responses to the second letter. "You shouldn't write anything that you don't stand behind"?!?! Jesus, do people really think that _everything_ is for public consumption? I reserve the right to have a private life! I mean, we're talking about a letter from a woman to her pals. I would like to think that my e-mail is not innately for public consumption. But according to some people, if a person with a weblog gets their hands on one of my e-mails, then suddenly it's my fault for not somehow making my e-mails self-destruct once they've been read! I have more to say about people who think like that, but I doubt that slashdot's lameness filter will let me post it.:)
I was intrigued by the note at the bottom: Oracle having a security flaw, taking six months to fix it, and charging for the patch. I did two or three quick searches of "Older Stuff," and couldn't find an allusion to it.
In contrast, I know SQL Slammer...
Regarding the Oracle security hole: you have no proof that it's true, but you believed it because you read something about it in an editorial on the web? Kind of like all those authors who spread the news about a "w2K recovery console security hole" thing?
Obviously, the above argument is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard. On one hand, it is ok when a 14-year-old violates the copyright of a RIAA or MPAA-owned company. On the other hand, it is not OK when a company releases GPL under terms not compatible with the GPL.
So, what is it going to be? Do we respect both the RIAA's copyright and the copyright which GPL programs have, or do we respect neither?
Have you read your.sig recently?
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Are you really serious? Rwanda is a member of the UN too, but that did not save 800,000 Tutsis from being massacred by the Hutus despite advance warnings and pleas for help. In fact, if you dig into the record, the UN (deliberately, thanks to certain *cough* France *cough* member states) turned a deaf ear to the situation. Relying on the UN for military assistance is suicidal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Hutu-led Rwandan government the one _doing_ the killing (see summary here)? I agree that the UN should have done more, but comparing this to what would happen if the US was attacked makes no sense.
Either way, time for a reality check. Small African nations are not treated the same as nations which are important enough to be members of the Security Council. It's sad but true. You say below that the UN is dependant on the US for defense, yet you also think that they wouldn't come to our aid? If nothing else, our economic ties to the rest of the world would assure that UN nations would come to our aid, at least in a defensive war (an offensive war is obviously another story!)
Both of those states are NATO members are rely ultimately on the United States for their defense. They could not defend themselves without the US. That's how they pull that trick off.
Defend themselves from who? Who exactly is going to invade Canada in the near future? Remember where I said that you should think about "what's _actually_ going on"? This is what I'm talking about. The enemies of the UN are a few individual nations, not a superpower (a la the Cold War). Some nations actually act like this is the case.
Besides, I've argued that the US military could afford to shrink. I didn't say that it should go away entirely!
Because US allies with the exception of the UK lack the capability to even deploy their forces abroad. Also, they increasingly lack the ability to operate with US forces due to antiquated command, control and communications systems.
Personally, I think that is so wrong it's laughable. You really think that no other military in the world is capable of sending troops abroad except the US and (conveniently) it's one major ally?
So, why do I think you're wrong. Here's a list of UN peacekeeping operations as of Mid 2002 and the percentage of US troops involved in each. Notice that the US supplies an average of 1.5% of troops to these operations. If this article is correct, then even some smaller nations supply thousands of UN Peacekeepers. There's my proof that other nations can deploy their forces. They could do it last year, and I assume that they can still do it now!
Now, where's your proof to back up your claim that only the US and England can deploy forces abroad?
Because it takes a long time to acquire modern warfighting capability.
Actually, I agree with this whole bit, but I was talking about the US gearing _itself_ up for war, by calling up reserves (or instituting a draft), building more weaponry, etc. We're talking about two different things here.
From the points you made, it seems you need to do a lot more informed thinking about modern military affairs.
I hate to tell you this pal, but unsubstantiated claims and misunderstanding what I'm talking about aren't exactly convincing me to listen to you.
Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance.
See, normally you'd be right, if it wasn't for the fact that the UN relies on the US to provide about 80% of their forces. Why the hell else do you think we go where we have no intrests at?
Good! Then we can cut back the US military by at least 20% (more if the rest of the UN starts picking up the slack). Sounds like you're supporting my point.
Assuming you're right, of course. Going to supply me with a reference for that "Fact"?
Research before you post please, it just makes you look stupid and misinforms other readers.
If you're going to disagree, come up with a more intelligent argument! You're giving out information which basically agrees with me even though you claim to disagree with me, point to an obscure "fact" without supplying a reference, then claim that _I_ look dumb? Please.
I would assume that you're being sarcastic, but who knows nowadays. So...
Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.
Without _any_ military, sure. But we're talking degrees here, not a yes/no situation. Please explain how, say, cutting military funding in half would cause the US to collapse (not that we're talking about anything nearly that severe). Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. That fact that we ignore the UN so often (think "World Court", or "not paying dues") and choose to get into wars that they do not support is part of our problem. Then again, perhaps that's part of what you meant by "our way of life"?
I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.
That would be the freedom to own two SUVs while half of Africa is starving, right?
Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but still... the problem isn't that the post-Vietnam generation doesn't think the military is worth having. If nothing else, it's an alternative to college for some people. Rather, the problem is that we know what the phrase "our way of life" really means, and we treat it as the rhetoric that it is. First, we're well aware that other industrialized countries are doing just fine without getting into wars every other year (also see below). On the other hand, we know that the "American way of life" is about having as many luxuries as money can buy, irregardless of the larger consequences (e.g. continuing poverty in much of the world, environmental damage, and for many Americans, excessive spending on credit). I love using my computer and participating in SlashDot discussions and the like, but I know that it's utterly unnecessary and that frankly the world would be better off if I didn't have this computer. You, on the other hand, seem like the type who thinks that society would collape if you couldn't buy your 16-year old a car.
Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.
I've lived in Canada and The Netherlands. They're both "less priveleged" than the US (as is every other nation on Earth, according to the US:), and they're both great, despite (or due to?) having smaller militaries than the US.
And no, cutting US military funding won't cause us to become Cambodia overnight. Nice scare tactic.
Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.
This is why I assume that you're being sarcastic. Assuming that your statement is true at all, the next question is, how many enemies does the US have exactly? Why should we assume that the US is going to fight them alone? Why should the US have the forces necessary to fight multiple enemies constantly available rather than simply having the capacity to acquire them? Do you really think that the US will have zero time to prepare for the next war?
I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.
...and some of us think that this kind of antiquated "US against the world" thinking will kill the US (not "this country", since SlashDot is an international forum). The cold war is over. Don't try to apply that type of thinking to the modern world. Instead, try thinking about what's _actually_ going on.
My video uses the AGP, but then sound is on board (and it's good), usb/firewire/serial-ATA RAID/regular ATA, etc are all on board PLUS two NICs.
Of course, not every new motherboard (much less slightly old ones) is so heavily integrated.
Even then, the problem is that the GeForce FX is a high-end user's card. The users who will run into slot problems with the GeForce FX are the same ones who will want more expansion cards than the averague user. I assume they'd want at least a better sound card (Audigy, Santa Cruz, or the like). I would guess that they're more likely to have SCSI drives (or a card for the latest version of Serial-ATA), TV-tuners (not built in to all video cards!), dual monitors (not all video cards support these either), or other oddball devices (slot coolers?) than the average user as well.
Having said that, with the 5-6 PCI slots standard on most motherboards nowadays, losing one probably doesn't matter much to anybody:) The real problem will be people who use tiny cases (like those Shuttle cases) or other small motherboards.
I find it odd that even though the story has nothing to do with microsoft the company still gets mentioned.
Let's assume that this is a real question. (It's easy to assume that any post which accuses anyone of "penis envy" is a Troll, but let's not.) In that case, there is a simple answer...
Will the linux community ever get over their penis envy of the more successful counterpart?
Let's try replacing "penis envy" with the more accurate term "competitiveness" and "more successful counterpart" with the more descriptive "main competitor".
Question: "Will the Linux community ever get over their competitiveness with their main competitor?"
See my reply to the other "clever commentator". (How come you guys don't get modded "Overrated", or at least "Redundant"?)
As a side note, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe some younger readers, or not-so-technical types, or (God forbid) hardcore Mac users might not have realized that Intel has been dumbing down Celerons for a while? One of the problems with sarcasm, especially poorly done sarcasm, is that it doesn't actually provide information. Instead, it assumes that everyone already knows the relevant facts. Perhaps my post, which actually contained facts wasn't so useless after all?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'm not running a linux-distro that's 7 years old.
In part because a 7 year-old Linux distro wasn't state-of-the-art less than 3 years ago.
Every computer needs a lighter
Nowadays you just touch your cigarette to your heatsink...
But for the hardcore gamer, I think they'd prefer to have the game in hand.
Heh. I've seen quite a few young "hardcore gamers" who don't actually have a copy of the game "in hand" at all...
But if you vary the current through each led, or vary the duty cycle by pulsing the leds quickly, then you can get more colors (like 24 bit color!)
:)
24-bit color, 1x1 resolution.
(or is that 1x1x1?)
Oh and that removable, throwable ball in the mouse is also an unfair advantage over your opponent.
:)
Just think of it as a "special move"
If the Tao is great, then the box is stable.
:)
If the box is stable, then the server is secure.
If the server is secure, then the data is safe.
If the data is safe, then the users are happy.
If the post is massive, then the author has no life.
(Seriously though, good job!)
Well, that isn't entirely true. You can kill explorer, then start it as another user thru runas, altho this causes really funky behavior.
Interesting.
If you then start up explorer-as-file-manager, can you manipulate files as the other user?
Also, do you happen to know if any programs you're running will keep running?
Although many other people have already mentioned "RunAs" for running programs, I should point out that you can't run explorer this way, at least in Windows 2000. Depending on what this guy "needs to" do as Administrator, there may or may not be a way to do it in Windows proper.
To do file management, including changing permissions and the like, you can use DOS (the command prompt can be run with RunAs). You can run the "cacls" command from the command prompt to change permissions, and I assume you know how to move files, make directories, etc.
Arkansas obviously believe that if you
underline something it MUST be obeyed
SILLY LEGISLATORS -- THAT'S WHAT CAPS ARE FOR
True, but if you retype it, how is anyone going to be convinced it's real.
Read the article. It's about an "anonymous" letter (only had a first name on it) which managed to get tracked back to its source.
When will people get that email is not secure. Its the digital equivalent of a postcard, but idiots still email credit card numbers and worse.
:)
The problem is that _nothing_ is secure once it's decrypted. Even if the e-mail had been sent encrypted and with "DO NOT PUBLISH" written on every other line, some random friend might still have sent the body of the e-mail (after decrypting it to read it) to a friend of theirs, who then forwards it to a friend who has a webpage... and so on. The same applies to written letters as well (ever heard of the "Xerox machine"?)
What's really amazing to me is some of those responses to the second letter. "You shouldn't write anything that you don't stand behind"?!?! Jesus, do people really think that _everything_ is for public consumption? I reserve the right to have a private life! I mean, we're talking about a letter from a woman to her pals. I would like to think that my e-mail is not innately for public consumption. But according to some people, if a person with a weblog gets their hands on one of my e-mails, then suddenly it's my fault for not somehow making my e-mails self-destruct once they've been read! I have more to say about people who think like that, but I doubt that slashdot's lameness filter will let me post it.
I'm so sorry...
Seriously Dude, Where's My Car? [imdb.com]
+1, Stupefying
I was intrigued by the note at the bottom: Oracle having a security flaw, taking six months to fix it, and charging for the patch. I did two or three quick searches of "Older Stuff," and couldn't find an allusion to it.
In contrast, I know SQL Slammer...
Regarding the Oracle security hole: you have no proof that it's true, but you believed it because you read something about it in an editorial on the web? Kind of like all those authors who spread the news about a "w2K recovery console security hole" thing?
(Isn't that just _so_ ironic?)
I don't know, maybe I'm going to buy 160 different items, one at a time, each time sending my credit card number.
That's why eBay is still in business...
People are always complaining about "Closed" operating systems but don't bat an eye that their BIOS is closed...
Probably because their favorite OSes don't use the BIOS at all after booting... and don't get rebooted often.
And if your BIOS is still too closed for your tastes, there's always the LinuxBIOS project.
There's a biological process here that I haven't heard anyone describe, or even identify. And yes, I want to patent it.
:) :) :) :) :)
Patent a biological process involved in sexual reproduction?
Can you say "prior art"?
why not use actual fire to make super-ultra-mega-extreme tuxracer?
Oh please, Tuxracer is easy...
Step 1: Find a penguin.
Step 2: Find a snow-covered hill.
Step 3: Throw pengiun down hill.
Obviously, the above argument is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard. On one hand, it is ok when a 14-year-old violates the copyright of a RIAA or MPAA-owned company. On the other hand, it is not OK when a company releases GPL under terms not compatible with the GPL.
.sig recently?
So, what is it going to be? Do we respect both the RIAA's copyright and the copyright which GPL programs have, or do we respect neither?
Have you read your
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Um. Why not?
The ads in Opera are not:
- Popups
- Spyware
- Intrusive
And the way the Web is nowadays, they just blend into the background!
Are you really serious? Rwanda is a member of the UN too, but that did not save 800,000 Tutsis from being massacred by the Hutus despite advance warnings and pleas for help. In fact, if you dig into the record, the UN (deliberately, thanks to certain *cough* France *cough* member states) turned a deaf ear to the situation. Relying on the UN for military assistance is suicidal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Hutu-led Rwandan government the one _doing_ the killing (see summary here)? I agree that the UN should have done more, but comparing this to what would happen if the US was attacked makes no sense.
Either way, time for a reality check. Small African nations are not treated the same as nations which are important enough to be members of the Security Council. It's sad but true. You say below that the UN is dependant on the US for defense, yet you also think that they wouldn't come to our aid? If nothing else, our economic ties to the rest of the world would assure that UN nations would come to our aid, at least in a defensive war (an offensive war is obviously another story!)
Both of those states are NATO members are rely ultimately on the United States for their defense. They could not defend themselves without the US. That's how they pull that trick off.
Defend themselves from who? Who exactly is going to invade Canada in the near future? Remember where I said that you should think about "what's _actually_ going on"? This is what I'm talking about. The enemies of the UN are a few individual nations, not a superpower (a la the Cold War). Some nations actually act like this is the case.
Besides, I've argued that the US military could afford to shrink. I didn't say that it should go away entirely!
Because US allies with the exception of the UK lack the capability to even deploy their forces abroad. Also, they increasingly lack the ability to operate with US forces due to antiquated command, control and communications systems.
Personally, I think that is so wrong it's laughable. You really think that no other military in the world is capable of sending troops abroad except the US and (conveniently) it's one major ally?
So, why do I think you're wrong. Here's a list of UN peacekeeping operations as of Mid 2002 and the percentage of US troops involved in each. Notice that the US supplies an average of 1.5% of troops to these operations. If this article is correct, then even some smaller nations supply thousands of UN Peacekeepers. There's my proof that other nations can deploy their forces. They could do it last year, and I assume that they can still do it now!
Now, where's your proof to back up your claim that only the US and England can deploy forces abroad?
Because it takes a long time to acquire modern warfighting capability.
Actually, I agree with this whole bit, but I was talking about the US gearing _itself_ up for war, by calling up reserves (or instituting a draft), building more weaponry, etc. We're talking about two different things here.
From the points you made, it seems you need to do a lot more informed thinking about modern military affairs.
I hate to tell you this pal, but unsubstantiated claims and misunderstanding what I'm talking about aren't exactly convincing me to listen to you.
Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance.
See, normally you'd be right, if it wasn't for the fact that the UN relies on the US to provide about 80% of their forces. Why the hell else do you think we go where we have no intrests at?
Good! Then we can cut back the US military by at least 20% (more if the rest of the UN starts picking up the slack). Sounds like you're supporting my point.
Assuming you're right, of course. Going to supply me with a reference for that "Fact"?
Research before you post please, it just makes you look stupid and misinforms other readers.
If you're going to disagree, come up with a more intelligent argument! You're giving out information which basically agrees with me even though you claim to disagree with me, point to an obscure "fact" without supplying a reference, then claim that _I_ look dumb? Please.
I would assume that you're being sarcastic, but who knows nowadays. So...
:), and they're both great, despite (or due to?) having smaller militaries than the US.
...and some of us think that this kind of antiquated "US against the world" thinking will kill the US (not "this country", since SlashDot is an international forum). The cold war is over. Don't try to apply that type of thinking to the modern world. Instead, try thinking about what's _actually_ going on.
Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.
Without _any_ military, sure. But we're talking degrees here, not a yes/no situation. Please explain how, say, cutting military funding in half would cause the US to collapse (not that we're talking about anything nearly that severe). Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. That fact that we ignore the UN so often (think "World Court", or "not paying dues") and choose to get into wars that they do not support is part of our problem. Then again, perhaps that's part of what you meant by "our way of life"?
I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.
That would be the freedom to own two SUVs while half of Africa is starving, right?
Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but still... the problem isn't that the post-Vietnam generation doesn't think the military is worth having. If nothing else, it's an alternative to college for some people. Rather, the problem is that we know what the phrase "our way of life" really means, and we treat it as the rhetoric that it is. First, we're well aware that other industrialized countries are doing just fine without getting into wars every other year (also see below). On the other hand, we know that the "American way of life" is about having as many luxuries as money can buy, irregardless of the larger consequences (e.g. continuing poverty in much of the world, environmental damage, and for many Americans, excessive spending on credit). I love using my computer and participating in SlashDot discussions and the like, but I know that it's utterly unnecessary and that frankly the world would be better off if I didn't have this computer. You, on the other hand, seem like the type who thinks that society would collape if you couldn't buy your 16-year old a car.
Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.
I've lived in Canada and The Netherlands. They're both "less priveleged" than the US (as is every other nation on Earth, according to the US
And no, cutting US military funding won't cause us to become Cambodia overnight. Nice scare tactic.
Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.
This is why I assume that you're being sarcastic. Assuming that your statement is true at all, the next question is, how many enemies does the US have exactly? Why should we assume that the US is going to fight them alone? Why should the US have the forces necessary to fight multiple enemies constantly available rather than simply having the capacity to acquire them? Do you really think that the US will have zero time to prepare for the next war?
I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.
My video uses the AGP, but then sound is on board (and it's good), usb/firewire/serial-ATA RAID/regular ATA, etc are all on board PLUS two NICs.
:) The real problem will be people who use tiny cases (like those Shuttle cases) or other small motherboards.
Of course, not every new motherboard (much less slightly old ones) is so heavily integrated.
Even then, the problem is that the GeForce FX is a high-end user's card. The users who will run into slot problems with the GeForce FX are the same ones who will want more expansion cards than the averague user. I assume they'd want at least a better sound card (Audigy, Santa Cruz, or the like). I would guess that they're more likely to have SCSI drives (or a card for the latest version of Serial-ATA), TV-tuners (not built in to all video cards!), dual monitors (not all video cards support these either), or other oddball devices (slot coolers?) than the average user as well.
Having said that, with the 5-6 PCI slots standard on most motherboards nowadays, losing one probably doesn't matter much to anybody
I find it odd that even though the story has nothing to do with microsoft the company still gets mentioned.
Let's assume that this is a real question. (It's easy to assume that any post which accuses anyone of "penis envy" is a Troll, but let's not.) In that case, there is a simple answer...
Will the linux community ever get over their penis envy of the more successful counterpart?
Let's try replacing "penis envy" with the more accurate term "competitiveness" and "more successful counterpart" with the more descriptive "main competitor".
Question: "Will the Linux community ever get over their competitiveness with their main competitor?"
Answer: I sure hope not.
More like "Duh!"
See my reply to the other "clever commentator". (How come you guys don't get modded "Overrated", or at least "Redundant"?)
As a side note, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe some younger readers, or not-so-technical types, or (God forbid) hardcore Mac users might not have realized that Intel has been dumbing down Celerons for a while? One of the problems with sarcasm, especially poorly done sarcasm, is that it doesn't actually provide information. Instead, it assumes that everyone already knows the relevant facts. Perhaps my post, which actually contained facts wasn't so useless after all?