The US government didn't "botch" prohibition - prohibition is an inherantly flawed model for the control of dangerous substances, that invariably causes more harm than good.
'why shouldn't people be able to buy marijuana if they don't have the resources to grow it at home?'
That's easy.
1) Drugs are bad mmkay
2) marijuana leads to heroin
3) pot is 30x stronger than in the 70s
4) Marijuana finances terrorism
5) You will become schizophrenic
6) What kind of message would that send to the children
REMEMBER KIDS: OBEY THE RULES - OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT
Re:saddam hussein gassed his own people
on
Liquid Hydrogen UAV
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Saddam killed his own People
Just like General Pinochet
And once upon a time both these evil men
were supported by the USA
Whisper it even Bin Laden
Once drank from America's Cup
Just like that election down in Florida
This shit doesn't all add up
Cause it's all about the price of oil
It's all about the price of oil
Don't give me no shit about blood, sweat, tears and toil
It's all about the price of oil
Sometimes people try to encode stereo into less than 64kbs. It's just crazy. I've listened to mono 56kbps mp3 that sounds a lot better than stereo 64kbs.
I'd much rather listen to a favourite song in mono with reasonable reproduction quality, than in stereo that sounds like it's coming out of a tunnell.
The debate is alive and well in Australia
on
Lobbying For Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The debate over the use of open-source software is underway, with the ALP adopting a strong pro open-source policy.
It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything about it when the conservatives finally get dumped.
But first of all I'd like to point out that file locking in no way protects you from file deletion in the exploit situation you describe. Builtin administrator allways has rights to kill processes / locks, it's just a matter of having the code. Hard locks are really just to stop corruption when you accidently open up two instances of MSAccess, or whatever.
1. create NT user accounts for your critical apps, eg sqlsvrusr, iisusr, perlusr, etc. Don't trust the installed builtins for these apps under any circumstances.
2. Assign the required rights to these users. (Winnt -> usr manager, user rights assignment. 2k -> group policy administrator / domain / local policy) It will take some time to figure out exactly what those are. There are many useful resources on the web.
3. Configure your apps to run as their respective users. (Services) Configure IIS to use the new IIS user for filesystem access (IIS console -> master properties -> security)
4. Assign the necessary NTFS perms. Start by removing "Everyone: Full control" from the top of the heirachy. Give sqlsvr usr access to the dbs, etc. Again, this will take some doing. Use WWW resources to assist.
There, that wasn't so hard. Now if someone cracks the "Administrator" account, they won't have access to your web content or sql db's. They can kill processes / locks, change the filesystem permissions back (It's a funny old OS) and generally still wreak havoc, but that's windows for you.
Now look AC, I'm sorry I said "we don't want you", because I didn't mean to get personal, and the truth is we do wan't you (I feel the good in you!!) But windows and Linux have totally different security architechture. You need to realise that and stop mocking what you don't yet fully understand.
Teach me how to lock a file from a root-level account on Linux.
OMG you actually believe that locking is a way to implement security don't you. *sigh* Let me guess, inetinfo.exe is running default app permissions, and you propagate Everyone:full control down from the top of your filesystem.
Stick to windows buddy, we don't want ya . . . . Well, not for a few re-installs yet, anyway.
Desktop standards are critical to Linux achieving greater desktop market share.
ISP: Hello?
Mom & Dad: Hi, I can't connect. I'm having trouble getting the modem to dial . . .
ISP: Ok, whaddya got? A Mac? Some kind of windows?
Mom & Dad: Uh, yeah . . . it's a PC
ISP: Ok, click on "start" in the bottom left hand corner of the desktop . . . . .
Mom & Dad: Um . . . I can't see start, there's like a "red hat / footprint / dinosaur" in the "bottom left / bottom right corner.
ISP: OK, we only support mac and windows, right. Bye now.
-Click-
The issue in this example is that tech-savvy call centre staff with no more than thirty minutes training can be expected to support mac and windows dialups over the phone. But until the same can be done for Linux, ISPs (for example) will never support it. This is a big barrier to Linux take-up by "Mom & Dad" type users. Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users.
Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux. Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.
The greatest damage has been and is being done by prohibition of drugs, not drugs themselves.
Violent crime, massive incarceration of NON violent offenders (at huge expense to the state), police corruption, electoral corruption, brainwashing campaigns (of which YOU are the result), and at the end of the day, addicts who can't be helped because ignorant people see it as moral issue rather than a health issue.
I know users who are addicts (a few) and users who aren't (the majority). That it is the "real world". It is your attitude that continues to re-inforce a damaging cycle.
One who sees drug addicts in an isolation (a doctor, or a social worker, for instance) would hopefully be intelligent and well informed enough to know that it is not a representative group, that one is not seeing the "real world" as you amusingly put it.
Moreover, you should be able to see that some of the most effective means of getting access to addicts and commencing rehabilitation, (eg maintainence and substitution) are unavailable to you because of the paranoia that has prevailed.
To suggest that the damage "can, has, and will be done" by drugs, is to ignore the damage done by prohibition. Yes, alchohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and heroin cause damage to our society, However in the case of the illegal ones, more damage is being done by their prohibition
Don't bother replying back to say "if we make them legal, many more people will use them, just like tobacco and alcohol" - You have already done enough to make plain your ignorance of the history and present reality of these matters.
Well, not if it's legal; drugs aren't illegal as such, it's the cultivation, manufacture, posession, dealership etc. that is illegal.
Drugs laws are similar to these copyright laws in that they provide another example of laws that are unenforceable. I'd suggest that unenforceable laws will be disobeyed, and can breed disprespect fow the law in general, as the parent suggests.
Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
It sounds like this prohibits bootlegging a concert or walking into a theatre with a video camera, not what you're talking about.
I don't advocate billing the packet sender on the internet, but it is fairer than billing the receiver.
I agree wholeheartedly, however in the case of the internet, the technology doesn't allow us to see who is the "sender" and the "receiver" as such. Simply determining this based on the direction of traffic flow wouldn't be appropriate for the majority of protocols used on the internet.
One critical factor is detrmining who initiated the traffic flow. In the case of a an email message being transmitted, the sender has initiated the traffic and one would think, ideally, that the cost would be born by that party. In the case of a web page being transferred on the other hand, as the traffic was initiated by the party receiving the data, it would seem unfair to charge the "sender" for the transmission (obviously there are exceptions eg popups).
What this boils down to is that downloaders and uploaders should pay alike, but in many cases it is difficult for all parties involved (billing-wise) to tell which is which.
Assuming we were able to determine this information, spammers, crackers and their ilk would be transmitting at their own expense, and the cost of worms would only be significant to those who fail to correct vulnerabilities quickly, and whose systems continue to transmit the worm. People would be able to host services on their home broadband connections and only pay for traffic they actually initiated.
Such a system would be almost ideal, and the technology may one day allow it. However additoional problems arise at the interconnect points between large networks. There is validity to the claims in this thread that service providers manipulate traffic flows to their advantage.
Consider the case of a large ISP/Webhost, connected to three other very large networks. Network A bills the ISP only for traffic inbound to the ISPs network. Network B bills all traffic in both directions. Network C also bills traffic in both directions, but with a percentile rule.
The ISP/webhost knows that traffic flows roughly equally in both directions across the borders of its network. They also know that networks A, B & C maintain large interconnects, and that a significant proportion of remote users that access locally hosted material are customers of Network B.
In the interest of reducing traffic costs, the ISP decides to advertise all routes to its borders thorugh Network A, confident that remote users on networks B & C will be able to reach it via network A.
Unfortunately, Network B sees that it is being done out of the oppurtunity to bill the ISP for traffic, and staticly routes all trafic to the ISPs network through the link to the ISPs network. This has the effect of making all traffic from Network B to the ISP billable, and also makes the ISPs network unavailable to most of Network B's customers during outages on the link between Network B and the ISP. Network B is ultimately able to bill the ISP and its other customers for the same traffic.
My point here is that simply that the technology that is at work here does not easily fit with a black and white billing policy - there are many complexities. In some places it is legislation that you cannot bill people for recieving phone calls. Hopefully one day it will be technically possible to enact similar policies in relation to the internet. Presently it is not.
Presumably the lower initial velocity of an electron stripped from this diamond tipped cathode allows for greater x-y displacement (rastering) in a shorter z displacement (length of tube).
Heated cathodes were originally devised to overcome the problem of the enormous field strength required to strip electrons from a cold, metal cathode. Once enough voltage was generated, electrons were stripped with enormous velocity, and passed through a much longer tube to produce x-rays. Generating visible light with these devices was difficult, and ultimately, dangerous to the viewer!
One problem with the cold cathode technology mentioned in this article would be ensuring that the electron striking the phosphor particles had sufficient velocity to cause an electron shell jump (ie. not enough energy and the phosphor won't emit photons.) By using these diamond tipped cathodes, they must be able to get the electrons off the cathode at lower field strength. Lower field strength = lower velocity, which would allow for a shorter deflection path and a shorter tube. But it won't gurantee that the phosphor will light up.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government didn't "botch" prohibition - prohibition is an inherantly flawed model for the control of dangerous substances, that invariably causes more harm than good.
1) Drugs are bad mmkay
Yeah only the illegal ones - how silly of me
2) marijuana leads to heroin
No way - the DEA and ONDCP have proved it conclusively. Don't you know that 99% of herion addicts have used marijuana?
3) pot is 30x stronger than in the 70s
Look man, ONDCP and just put out another press release confirming this. What gave you the idea that you have the right to think for yourself, anyway?
4) Marijuana finances terrorism
Gee you must have missed the TV ads.
5) You will become schizophrenic
See point 3 above.
6) What kind of message would that send to the children
The message we must send to children is: We will put you in jail. That is the message that we must send to kids who break the rules. MAKE NO MISTAKE.
Do you ever get the feeling you're being made fun of?
'why shouldn't people be able to buy marijuana if they don't have the resources to grow it at home?'
That's easy.
1) Drugs are bad mmkay 2) marijuana leads to heroin 3) pot is 30x stronger than in the 70s 4) Marijuana finances terrorism 5) You will become schizophrenic 6) What kind of message would that send to the children
REMEMBER KIDS: OBEY THE RULES - OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT
Saddam killed his own People
Just like General Pinochet
And once upon a time both these evil men
were supported by the USA
Whisper it even Bin Laden
Once drank from America's Cup
Just like that election down in Florida
This shit doesn't all add up
Cause it's all about the price of oil
It's all about the price of oil
Don't give me no shit about blood, sweat, tears and toil
It's all about the price of oil
Hey - Don't you mean how many Erlangs to the gallon :)
Good one though
The Mac OS X writes data to the machine's NVRAM on kernel panic, which is then retrievable and interpretable once the system reboots.
Well, Linux flashes this information out of the keyboard lights in Morse Code
So There!
Synaptics touchpad driver for X should does it as well
http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed26 9.htm
Sometimes people try to encode stereo into less than 64kbs. It's just crazy. I've listened to mono 56kbps mp3 that sounds a lot better than stereo 64kbs.
I'd much rather listen to a favourite song in mono with reasonable reproduction quality, than in stereo that sounds like it's coming out of a tunnell.
The debate over the use of open-source software is underway, with the ALP adopting a strong pro open-source policy.
It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything about it when the conservatives finally get dumped.
Yeah, not the people in the sweatshops though.
Point taken though. Perhaps Thailand or Hong Kong would have been a better example.
Ok, you seem earnest, so I'll bite (again).
But first of all I'd like to point out that file locking in no way protects you from file deletion in the exploit situation you describe. Builtin administrator allways has rights to kill processes / locks, it's just a matter of having the code. Hard locks are really just to stop corruption when you accidently open up two instances of MSAccess, or whatever.
1. create NT user accounts for your critical apps, eg sqlsvrusr, iisusr, perlusr, etc. Don't trust the installed builtins for these apps under any circumstances.
2. Assign the required rights to these users. (Winnt -> usr manager, user rights assignment. 2k -> group policy administrator / domain / local policy) It will take some time to figure out exactly what those are. There are many useful resources on the web.
3. Configure your apps to run as their respective users. (Services) Configure IIS to use the new IIS user for filesystem access (IIS console -> master properties -> security)
4. Assign the necessary NTFS perms. Start by removing "Everyone: Full control" from the top of the heirachy. Give sqlsvr usr access to the dbs, etc. Again, this will take some doing. Use WWW resources to assist.
There, that wasn't so hard. Now if someone cracks the "Administrator" account, they won't have access to your web content or sql db's. They can kill processes / locks, change the filesystem permissions back (It's a funny old OS) and generally still wreak havoc, but that's windows for you.
Now look AC, I'm sorry I said "we don't want you", because I didn't mean to get personal, and the truth is we do wan't you (I feel the good in you!!) But windows and Linux have totally different security architechture. You need to realise that and stop mocking what you don't yet fully understand.
Teach me how to lock a file from a root-level account on Linux.
OMG you actually believe that locking is a way to implement security don't you. *sigh* Let me guess, inetinfo.exe is running default app permissions, and you propagate Everyone:full control down from the top of your filesystem.
Stick to windows buddy, we don't want ya . . . . Well, not for a few re-installs yet, anyway.
What, harder that the people in the Saipan sweatshops who make our clothes? Debatable.
Desktop standards are critical to Linux achieving greater desktop market share.
ISP: Hello?
Mom & Dad: Hi, I can't connect. I'm having trouble getting the modem to dial . . .
ISP: Ok, whaddya got? A Mac? Some kind of windows?
Mom & Dad: Uh, yeah . . . it's a PC
ISP: Ok, click on "start" in the bottom left hand corner of the desktop . . . . .
Mom & Dad: Um . . . I can't see start, there's like a "red hat / footprint / dinosaur" in the "bottom left / bottom right corner.
ISP: OK, we only support mac and windows, right. Bye now.
-Click-
The issue in this example is that tech-savvy call centre staff with no more than thirty minutes training can be expected to support mac and windows dialups over the phone. But until the same can be done for Linux, ISPs (for example) will never support it. This is a big barrier to Linux take-up by "Mom & Dad" type users. Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users.
Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux. Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.
agreed - concise, well written.
The greatest damage has been and is being done by prohibition of drugs, not drugs themselves.
Violent crime, massive incarceration of NON violent offenders (at huge expense to the state), police corruption, electoral corruption, brainwashing campaigns (of which YOU are the result), and at the end of the day, addicts who can't be helped because ignorant people see it as moral issue rather than a health issue.
I know users who are addicts (a few) and users who aren't (the majority). That it is the "real world". It is your attitude that continues to re-inforce a damaging cycle.
One who sees drug addicts in an isolation (a doctor, or a social worker, for instance) would hopefully be intelligent and well informed enough to know that it is not a representative group, that one is not seeing the "real world" as you amusingly put it.
Moreover, you should be able to see that some of the most effective means of getting access to addicts and commencing rehabilitation, (eg maintainence and substitution) are unavailable to you because of the paranoia that has prevailed.
To suggest that the damage "can, has, and will be done" by drugs, is to ignore the damage done by prohibition. Yes, alchohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and heroin cause damage to our society, However in the case of the illegal ones, more damage is being done by their prohibition
Don't bother replying back to say "if we make them legal, many more people will use them, just like tobacco and alcohol" - You have already done enough to make plain your ignorance of the history and present reality of these matters.
you are confusing cause and effect.
I'm pretty sure you just agreed with AC's criticism of your original post.
Well, not if it's legal; drugs aren't illegal as such, it's the cultivation, manufacture, posession, dealership etc. that is illegal.
Drugs laws are similar to these copyright laws in that they provide another example of laws that are unenforceable. I'd suggest that unenforceable laws will be disobeyed, and can breed disprespect fow the law in general, as the parent suggests.
Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
It sounds like this prohibits bootlegging a concert or walking into a theatre with a video camera, not what you're talking about.
I don't advocate billing the packet sender on the internet, but it is fairer than billing the receiver.
I agree wholeheartedly, however in the case of the internet, the technology doesn't allow us to see who is the "sender" and the "receiver" as such. Simply determining this based on the direction of traffic flow wouldn't be appropriate for the majority of protocols used on the internet.
One critical factor is detrmining who initiated the traffic flow. In the case of a an email message being transmitted, the sender has initiated the traffic and one would think, ideally, that the cost would be born by that party. In the case of a web page being transferred on the other hand, as the traffic was initiated by the party receiving the data, it would seem unfair to charge the "sender" for the transmission (obviously there are exceptions eg popups).
What this boils down to is that downloaders and uploaders should pay alike, but in many cases it is difficult for all parties involved (billing-wise) to tell which is which.
Assuming we were able to determine this information, spammers, crackers and their ilk would be transmitting at their own expense, and the cost of worms would only be significant to those who fail to correct vulnerabilities quickly, and whose systems continue to transmit the worm. People would be able to host services on their home broadband connections and only pay for traffic they actually initiated.
Such a system would be almost ideal, and the technology may one day allow it. However additoional problems arise at the interconnect points between large networks. There is validity to the claims in this thread that service providers manipulate traffic flows to their advantage.
Consider the case of a large ISP/Webhost, connected to three other very large networks. Network A bills the ISP only for traffic inbound to the ISPs network. Network B bills all traffic in both directions. Network C also bills traffic in both directions, but with a percentile rule.
The ISP/webhost knows that traffic flows roughly equally in both directions across the borders of its network. They also know that networks A, B & C maintain large interconnects, and that a significant proportion of remote users that access locally hosted material are customers of Network B.
In the interest of reducing traffic costs, the ISP decides to advertise all routes to its borders thorugh Network A, confident that remote users on networks B & C will be able to reach it via network A.
Unfortunately, Network B sees that it is being done out of the oppurtunity to bill the ISP for traffic, and staticly routes all trafic to the ISPs network through the link to the ISPs network. This has the effect of making all traffic from Network B to the ISP billable, and also makes the ISPs network unavailable to most of Network B's customers during outages on the link between Network B and the ISP. Network B is ultimately able to bill the ISP and its other customers for the same traffic.
My point here is that simply that the technology that is at work here does not easily fit with a black and white billing policy - there are many complexities. In some places it is legislation that you cannot bill people for recieving phone calls. Hopefully one day it will be technically possible to enact similar policies in relation to the internet. Presently it is not.
Presumably the lower initial velocity of an electron stripped from this diamond tipped cathode allows for greater x-y displacement (rastering) in a shorter z displacement (length of tube).
Heated cathodes were originally devised to overcome the problem of the enormous field strength required to strip electrons from a cold, metal cathode. Once enough voltage was generated, electrons were stripped with enormous velocity, and passed through a much longer tube to produce x-rays. Generating visible light with these devices was difficult, and ultimately, dangerous to the viewer!
One problem with the cold cathode technology mentioned in this article would be ensuring that the electron striking the phosphor particles had sufficient velocity to cause an electron shell jump (ie. not enough energy and the phosphor won't emit photons.) By using these diamond tipped cathodes, they must be able to get the electrons off the cathode at lower field strength. Lower field strength = lower velocity, which would allow for a shorter deflection path and a shorter tube. But it won't gurantee that the phosphor will light up.
http://sp3.altaibc.net.au/atari/Atari.htm