It's not legal to shoot someone in the US simply for knocking on your door or even being on your land. If's he's in your house without your permission, especially at night, then you can light his ass up.
First, we have the actual Geneva Conventions requirement for an ID card stating certain info, such as name, DOB, ID number, Geneva Conventions Category (for example, I'm a Category III - which places different limits on how I can be treated as a POW versus a Cat II or IV), country, & military branch. I beleieve it's not required, but ours also list height, weight, hair and eye color, and blood type.
This has been improved with the new Common Access Card (CAC). It has a microchip (solid state - looks like a small MMC card) on the front that has all of this info stored along with a index fingerprint scan. There was talk of including our SRB's (Service Record Book - our record book that has everything except medical data) and even eventually something like a retina scan. I don't think this happened, because that's not really info the enemy should have access to, nor do service members need to carry it around with them when we have a network for that sort of thing. And retina scanners are still likely cost-prohibitive.
The real point of the chip on the CAC is to aid with verification to a classified system or area. Though in the case of the latter, it will be backed up by an armed Marine who knows who you are - a system impervious to everything except Stealth Ninjas.
The second piece is the dog tag. I'm pretty sure it's not required by the Geneva Conventions. It's purpose is to assist others if you are killed or injured. It gives info on who you are - name, SSN, & branch. It give medically pertinent info - gender & blood type (tags are red colored if member is allergic to penicilin). And finally it lists religious preference for burial purposes.
This is an area where we will be likely updating. The last I heard, the chip will be in the tags themselves and will include our complete medical and dental records. Corpsmen and medics could scan the tags with portable readers and get a complete medical history. This is information that has battlefield pertinance, must be accessable without a network, and not something that needs to be hidden from an enemy if captured (it would be nice if they did know, if they plan to abide by the Geneva Conventions).
I think you misread it. He was saying the Debian machine has better games, not XP. As he stated above, he has "about 600 freeware games installed on this system."
So I was a Mandrake user for the both the 7.x and 8.x series. I liked it a lot, but I also had quite a few crashes (usually KDE apps). I know lots of other people have had the same gripe about Mandrake in the past, i.e. that it was very nice, but pretty unstable.
Has Mandrake's stability improved in the 9.x series? I'd especially like to hear from folks who were testing the Cooker versions that became 9.2. Thanks.
Yeah, but apparently it's flamebait to point out to someone who accuses the military of being filled with PHB's that they don't know the difference between a manager and a leader. *sigh*
No, I described a leader. You need to look up the difference. Just because you've seen people who couldn't lead or manage a group of kindergardeners going to the bathroom, doesn't mean that it's a lost art. Most Marine officers get a minimum of five years worth of leadership and management training and application pounded into their heads before they even step in front of a platoon.
The mindset you describe is endemic to the other services. Marines hate doing shit just for the sake of doing shit. We're very much into "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The reason stems both from the culture of the Corps and the fact that we don't have an assload of money to toss around like the other services *cough*Air Force*cough*.
As Fr0mZer0 pointed out, our biggest problem is high turnover in critical MOS's - and computer-related fields are some of the worst.
Another problem we face is worthless systems or infrastructures pushed down on us from the Department of the Navy because the Navy wants some new whiz-bang, e.g. NMCI (don't get me started on that piece of monkey-shit).
I don't think asking people to do something outside of their degrees is a problem for two reasons. First, spreading your wings is what being an officer is all about. Second, you're there to lead - not be the technical expert. If you need technical expertise, that's what your senior enlisted are for and anything beyond them can be contracted out.
I don't know what the ratio of combat support vs combart arms forces are, but rest assured that they are much lower in the Corps, just as the officer vs enlisted ratio is. Besides, in the Marines, we're all riflemen anyways.
I've changed my hosts file to point sitefinder.verisign.com at 127.0.0.1 and it worked. So I would assume that most people in the know can fix it by pointing the address at a non-existant IP, either on the local machine or at the ISP level. Either way, this is the stupidest thing I've seen in quite a while.
That's exactly right. The best way to kill a bad law is to enforce it as much as possible. Just like when my city council decided to drastically lower the speed limit on a street for no good reason at all. Even the cops I knew didn't like it. I asked one of them if he would just ignore it. He smilied and told me that the chief had told them to enforce the shit out of it and that it would soon be a memory. Sure enough, the change only lasted about three months.:)
The Osprey's shortcomings were over-publicized for the most part. Many new aircraft have significant problems, especially one so radically different as the Osprey. The fact that some officers decided to try and cover up the problems didn't help public perception, but that's just what it was - perception, not fact.
The Marine Corps needs a new medium-lift helo. The CH-46 Sea Knight is entirely too old. Have you ever ridden in one? I have, and believe me when I tell you that we don't call them "Flying Coffins" because we thought the name sounded pretty.
The Osprey isn't perfect, but it's an example of a system that can be great if given the chance.
Absolutely, hilarious. The anchor on CNN just mention that some people are wondering if it was related to the "computer worm" that's going around. Beautiful. I blame MS for a lot, but a power outage? Ha!
BTW, Pudge, thanks for drop-kicking yet another individual spouting FUD in this thread.
That's an excellent point that hasn't really occured to me before. Security advisories (from every vendor) either make it sound like you're already fucked or that it would take such incredible circumstances for your system to be compromised that you're bulletproof. All vendors would do well to offer their advisories in a condensed, easy-to-read, and more comprehendable manner. Then provide a link at the bottom for the propeller-heads like us to follow and get the details that we need. This is an area in which the whole industry is falling short.
I think the fact that there were a lot of users who didn't install the patch because they're too lazy to do it or too lazy to learn how to properly operate a computer is pathetic.
However, if you want to use the vehicle analogy, how would you feel if GM wanted you bring in your car every Saturday and leave it for most of the day because of a recall every other week? And what if the repair sometimes worked perfectly, but at other times made the winshield wipers, the trunk, or the entire car stop working? Yeah, users should maintain what they've bought, but GM wouldn't go and mount the gas tank on the front bumper or install faulty seatbelts in every car.
Troll, how is something like redhat's up2date harder that windows update??? And what the hell did I say about turning shit on by default? Why don't they turn on Windows firewall by default? Why don't they turn off high-vulnerability services by default? What the last Linux worm that fucked things up on the scale of a MS worm?
If you're going to troll, put some effort into it. That drivel you spewed was just plain sad.
Why is Microsoft leaving ports open by default that have no business being open in the vast majority of cases?
They've spent years breeding increasingly clueless users. Think about what kind of knowledge was required to run DOS/Win3.1 versus WinXP. It's a good thing that operating systems have gotten easier to use. However, that means that the users will be less and less clueful as time goes by.
Saying the users are at fault for not applying a critical patch when there was ample warning from multiple sources is all well and good. They do deserve part of the blame. But expecting users to understand patches when they can't even understand/care many other simple administration tasks is foolishness. This isn't even taking into account people on dialup who have lots of patches from MS marked critical and don't want to blow hours at a time downloading them. Also, this patch isn't perfect - I know of several people running Win2000 that are now having issues.
Yes, users should learn to update their damn systems. No one is disputing that fact. However, MS deserves a large part of the blame for consistently releasing outrageously buggy code (including their patches), setting so many things to an insecure state by default, and breeding ignorant users but not taking care of them.
Bobby is the least useful accessibility report tool in town.
I agree - Bobby really is quite useless. It gets confused easily and spews out incorrect messages left and right. It's probably the worst validation tool I've ever used.
get the checklist instead of the W3C novella format
Entities that write programs & don't want them reverse engineered may be the current status quo, but you're wrong about the causality. If Python and Perl had been around well before C and the compiling/non-compiling advantages were flip-flopped, I believe we'd have a different environment today.
Either way, it is a moot point. Compilation was a more efficient way of doing things, especially large programs, long before Perl or Python existed (and still is, for the most part). I don't think Microsoft chose to write Windows in C because it would be "like encryption". They chose it because assembly would be practical and BASIC didn't have the power.
And my comment about your education wasn't an attempt to belittle you (though it could be interpreted that way), it was to point out that you're demonstrating a lack of theoretical knowledge of the subjects that you are claiming to know about. Just as you did on steganography versus encryption.
In other words, you're talking out your ass, and you shouldn't. Have a nice day.
So compiling a program is now a form of steganography??? That's a misguided and just plain wrong statement. Reading your comment makes me wonder if you've ever taken an assembly class, let alone a regular programming one.
Programs are compiled so that the machine can run it. Period. That's the only reason. Comments are stripped because they are pointless to the machine. The original code is further jumbled by optimization.
However, the fact that disassembly is difficult is a side effect, not a goal. Companies who produce closed source products may be happy about it, but it is nothing more than happy coincidence.
And if compilation is anything, it's encryption. Steganography has fuck-all to do with encryption. It deals with hiding. Encryption deals with making your data difficult to read. If you know the assembly code is there - guess which one it's closer to...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not legal to shoot someone in the US simply for knocking on your door or even being on your land. If's he's in your house without your permission, especially at night, then you can light his ass up.
Well, two issues here.
First, we have the actual Geneva Conventions requirement for an ID card stating certain info, such as name, DOB, ID number, Geneva Conventions Category (for example, I'm a Category III - which places different limits on how I can be treated as a POW versus a Cat II or IV), country, & military branch. I beleieve it's not required, but ours also list height, weight, hair and eye color, and blood type.
This has been improved with the new Common Access Card (CAC). It has a microchip (solid state - looks like a small MMC card) on the front that has all of this info stored along with a index fingerprint scan. There was talk of including our SRB's (Service Record Book - our record book that has everything except medical data) and even eventually something like a retina scan. I don't think this happened, because that's not really info the enemy should have access to, nor do service members need to carry it around with them when we have a network for that sort of thing. And retina scanners are still likely cost-prohibitive.
The real point of the chip on the CAC is to aid with verification to a classified system or area. Though in the case of the latter, it will be backed up by an armed Marine who knows who you are - a system impervious to everything except Stealth Ninjas.
The second piece is the dog tag. I'm pretty sure it's not required by the Geneva Conventions. It's purpose is to assist others if you are killed or injured. It gives info on who you are - name, SSN, & branch. It give medically pertinent info - gender & blood type (tags are red colored if member is allergic to penicilin). And finally it lists religious preference for burial purposes.
This is an area where we will be likely updating. The last I heard, the chip will be in the tags themselves and will include our complete medical and dental records. Corpsmen and medics could scan the tags with portable readers and get a complete medical history. This is information that has battlefield pertinance, must be accessable without a network, and not something that needs to be hidden from an enemy if captured (it would be nice if they did know, if they plan to abide by the Geneva Conventions).
Well then, it's a good thing you were such a dickhead to him. You're no better than the troll. Grow up.
Both worked great for me in Mozilla 1.5 on WinXP Pro. Didn't try logging in, of course.
I once stumbled upon a thread where him & someone else were disagreeing. Then it turned into something like this:
7 617
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88171&cid=763
Had him on my enemies list every since, so I didn't make the mistake of taking him seriously.
This guy is a well known troll/jackass. You weren't coming off as elitest. He always comes off as the asshole he is.
I think you misread it. He was saying the Debian machine has better games, not XP. As he stated above, he has "about 600 freeware games installed on this system."
So I was a Mandrake user for the both the 7.x and 8.x series. I liked it a lot, but I also had quite a few crashes (usually KDE apps). I know lots of other people have had the same gripe about Mandrake in the past, i.e. that it was very nice, but pretty unstable.
Has Mandrake's stability improved in the 9.x series? I'd especially like to hear from folks who were testing the Cooker versions that became 9.2. Thanks.
Yeah, but apparently it's flamebait to point out to someone who accuses the military of being filled with PHB's that they don't know the difference between a manager and a leader. *sigh*
No, I described a leader. You need to look up the difference. Just because you've seen people who couldn't lead or manage a group of kindergardeners going to the bathroom, doesn't mean that it's a lost art. Most Marine officers get a minimum of five years worth of leadership and management training and application pounded into their heads before they even step in front of a platoon.
The mindset you describe is endemic to the other services. Marines hate doing shit just for the sake of doing shit. We're very much into "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The reason stems both from the culture of the Corps and the fact that we don't have an assload of money to toss around like the other services *cough*Air Force*cough*.
As Fr0mZer0 pointed out, our biggest problem is high turnover in critical MOS's - and computer-related fields are some of the worst.
Another problem we face is worthless systems or infrastructures pushed down on us from the Department of the Navy because the Navy wants some new whiz-bang, e.g. NMCI (don't get me started on that piece of monkey-shit).
I don't think asking people to do something outside of their degrees is a problem for two reasons. First, spreading your wings is what being an officer is all about. Second, you're there to lead - not be the technical expert. If you need technical expertise, that's what your senior enlisted are for and anything beyond them can be contracted out.
I don't know what the ratio of combat support vs combart arms forces are, but rest assured that they are much lower in the Corps, just as the officer vs enlisted ratio is. Besides, in the Marines, we're all riflemen anyways.
I've changed my hosts file to point sitefinder.verisign.com at 127.0.0.1 and it worked. So I would assume that most people in the know can fix it by pointing the address at a non-existant IP, either on the local machine or at the ISP level. Either way, this is the stupidest thing I've seen in quite a while.
That's exactly right. The best way to kill a bad law is to enforce it as much as possible. Just like when my city council decided to drastically lower the speed limit on a street for no good reason at all. Even the cops I knew didn't like it. I asked one of them if he would just ignore it. He smilied and told me that the chief had told them to enforce the shit out of it and that it would soon be a memory. Sure enough, the change only lasted about three months. :)
The Osprey's shortcomings were over-publicized for the most part. Many new aircraft have significant problems, especially one so radically different as the Osprey. The fact that some officers decided to try and cover up the problems didn't help public perception, but that's just what it was - perception, not fact.
The Marine Corps needs a new medium-lift helo. The CH-46 Sea Knight is entirely too old. Have you ever ridden in one? I have, and believe me when I tell you that we don't call them "Flying Coffins" because we thought the name sounded pretty.
The Osprey isn't perfect, but it's an example of a system that can be great if given the chance.
Absolutely, hilarious. The anchor on CNN just mention that some people are wondering if it was related to the "computer worm" that's going around. Beautiful. I blame MS for a lot, but a power outage? Ha!
BTW, Pudge, thanks for drop-kicking yet another individual spouting FUD in this thread.
That's an excellent point that hasn't really occured to me before. Security advisories (from every vendor) either make it sound like you're already fucked or that it would take such incredible circumstances for your system to be compromised that you're bulletproof. All vendors would do well to offer their advisories in a condensed, easy-to-read, and more comprehendable manner. Then provide a link at the bottom for the propeller-heads like us to follow and get the details that we need. This is an area in which the whole industry is falling short.
Besides your made-up figures, none of that made much sense. And one Linux worm? Wow.
I think the fact that there were a lot of users who didn't install the patch because they're too lazy to do it or too lazy to learn how to properly operate a computer is pathetic.
However, if you want to use the vehicle analogy, how would you feel if GM wanted you bring in your car every Saturday and leave it for most of the day because of a recall every other week? And what if the repair sometimes worked perfectly, but at other times made the winshield wipers, the trunk, or the entire car stop working? Yeah, users should maintain what they've bought, but GM wouldn't go and mount the gas tank on the front bumper or install faulty seatbelts in every car.
Troll, how is something like redhat's up2date harder that windows update??? And what the hell did I say about turning shit on by default? Why don't they turn on Windows firewall by default? Why don't they turn off high-vulnerability services by default? What the last Linux worm that fucked things up on the scale of a MS worm?
If you're going to troll, put some effort into it. That drivel you spewed was just plain sad.
Why is Microsoft leaving ports open by default that have no business being open in the vast majority of cases?
They've spent years breeding increasingly clueless users. Think about what kind of knowledge was required to run DOS/Win3.1 versus WinXP. It's a good thing that operating systems have gotten easier to use. However, that means that the users will be less and less clueful as time goes by.
Saying the users are at fault for not applying a critical patch when there was ample warning from multiple sources is all well and good. They do deserve part of the blame. But expecting users to understand patches when they can't even understand/care many other simple administration tasks is foolishness. This isn't even taking into account people on dialup who have lots of patches from MS marked critical and don't want to blow hours at a time downloading them. Also, this patch isn't perfect - I know of several people running Win2000 that are now having issues.
Yes, users should learn to update their damn systems. No one is disputing that fact. However, MS deserves a large part of the blame for consistently releasing outrageously buggy code (including their patches), setting so many things to an insecure state by default, and breeding ignorant users but not taking care of them.
Bobby is the least useful accessibility report tool in town.
I agree - Bobby really is quite useless. It gets confused easily and spews out incorrect messages left and right. It's probably the worst validation tool I've ever used.
get the checklist instead of the W3C novella format
The checklist really is the best way to go.
Entities that write programs & don't want them reverse engineered may be the current status quo, but you're wrong about the causality. If Python and Perl had been around well before C and the compiling/non-compiling advantages were flip-flopped, I believe we'd have a different environment today.
Either way, it is a moot point. Compilation was a more efficient way of doing things, especially large programs, long before Perl or Python existed (and still is, for the most part). I don't think Microsoft chose to write Windows in C because it would be "like encryption". They chose it because assembly would be practical and BASIC didn't have the power.
And my comment about your education wasn't an attempt to belittle you (though it could be interpreted that way), it was to point out that you're demonstrating a lack of theoretical knowledge of the subjects that you are claiming to know about. Just as you did on steganography versus encryption.
In other words, you're talking out your ass, and you shouldn't. Have a nice day.
Pretty sure they don't. I believe this is something only on the NT side of the house.
So compiling a program is now a form of steganography??? That's a misguided and just plain wrong statement. Reading your comment makes me wonder if you've ever taken an assembly class, let alone a regular programming one.
Programs are compiled so that the machine can run it. Period. That's the only reason. Comments are stripped because they are pointless to the machine. The original code is further jumbled by optimization.
However, the fact that disassembly is difficult is a side effect, not a goal. Companies who produce closed source products may be happy about it, but it is nothing more than happy coincidence.
And if compilation is anything, it's encryption. Steganography has fuck-all to do with encryption. It deals with hiding. Encryption deals with making your data difficult to read. If you know the assembly code is there - guess which one it's closer to...