I'm sure it's working. It yanks.pif,.exe,.com,.bat -- basically everything exploitable REGARDLESS if it finds a virus or not. There's only been three files since monday that it yanked that didn't scan as viruses. Two were multiple extensions (like "Some.work.pdf") and the other was a.exe for an MSAccess viewer. All were legit files.
Aren't you lucky. Here's what our email server cought since Monday: 237 W32/Yaha-E 235 W32/Klez-H 009 W32/Sircam-A 004 W32/Bugbear-B 003 Dial/PecDial-B 002 W32/Yaha-K 002 Troj/Peido-B 001 W32/Sobig-F 001 W32/Klez-E 001 W32/Bugbear-Dam
Only one Sobig so far... But Klez and Yaha numbers have been high for months. Too many of our users have front-facing email addresses (posted on our corporate website).
What a wonderful comparison, taking data from one database system running on one OS to another database system running on another OS. Gee, I wonder why it took you so long, you fucking Linux troll.
You're kidding right? I've moved databases from different RDBs running an various flavors of *nix to different RDBs running different flavors of *nix and it has historically been quite smooth (although, I had some problems with an older SCO system). I've even moved from unix to win32 and the other way.
My experience has been that anything relating to win32 and RDBs is far more time consuming.
I've migrated from various flavors of Win servers (NT (old and new), 2k) and various flavors of linux -- both for work and home. I completely agree. Hands down, moving from one machine to another using in linux takes me about a 10th of the time.
Even database migration has been easy. Can't say that for the win environment. I had a nightmare moving one client from interbase on NT4 to MS SQL2k on win2k.
>>It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn.
And you don't? Wait, 90% > 50% in my world. Oh, yeah, fed taxes. Make that 70% > 50%.
Yeah. I don't. Last year, after all taxes were considered -- state and federal income tax, SSI, unemployment ins, etc, after sales tax, after the tax on my phone, the tax on my car, the tax on my property, the tax on my electric bill, the tax on my water bill, the tax on my cable bill, tax on my gas (home), tax on my gas (car), etc etc etc, I put out over 53%. And I itemize EVERYTHING.
So are you running for governor, since it's such an easy job?
Yeah, thats right. If my mechanic can't fix my car, I should do it huh? He keeps charging me and charging me so I should either pay more or do it myself? There's a third option here. Fire the bum and take it to a NEW mechanic.
It's easy to be an armchair official. Spend a day or two inside a government agency and see how clear-cut this all is.
It's easy to say "it's complicated" and just toss more money at problems. The answer to EVERY problem this state has is NOT to spend more on it. Yet this is what happenes.
As far as provding sources, I've provided quite a few in previous posts. Take some personal responsibility and LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You've provided NOTHING to back up any claim you've made. Here's another example of an outragous claim made by you:
In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are.
Yet a simple google news search yields indications that it's NOT everywhere -- and many cities and states are improving. Why not check where they are listed on the "business friendly" states? PA, OH, TX, IL are among many of the states doing better. Many cities are seeing the unemployment rate, which had been rising, starting to stablize and should hopefully drop in the near future.
And here's another outragous claim of yours with no back up material:
We spend, in inflation-adjusted dollars, far, far less per student than we did in the 70's and even early 80's. I'll get the exact numbers later if I have the time. We can double the amount we spend, and if we have triple the students, our education will still go downhill.
In California, a new study by the Pacific Research Institute found that the state
increased education spending by 29 percent over the past 10 years (in inflation-adjusted terms), yet school children in the state rank near the bottom of performance.
The fact is we spend over $200,000 per class room on average -- subtract the average teacher's salary of about $50k and you have $150k in overhead. There's a problem there. Thats around $7000-$8000 per student in public school while private schools in CA average around $3500/student and do a far better job. We were spending too much in the 70's without getting a justified return. It's far worse now.
I'm satisfied. Your a demagog. And ill-informed. And lazy. And you're willing to pay what I consider to be unreasonable taxes -- so long as no single tax is "too much" as to notice it. Those nibbles all add up.
A total maximum of a 50% tax burden is not unreasonable. Talks of a 50% federal bracket ALONE scare the bejeezus out of me.
- State sales tax is nowhere near 10%. In Los Angeles County it's 8.25% and I think ours is the highest. At least 1.5% of that is county tax. State sales tax is 6.something percent. That's closer to 5% than 10%.
- If state income tax was 10%, I would have owed another $6370.70 last year when I sold a house. I paid 7.77% in the highest possible tax bracket.
The highest tax rate in california as of 01/01/2003 is 9.6%. Davis was talking, very soon after the election of raising that to 11%. BTW, last year, the year you claim the highest tax was 7.77%, is in fact 9.3%. You better have your accountant look over your income tax for last year -- I think you're screwed.
I'm of the opinion that you are a demagog and no amount of reason or source material or logic is going to change your opinion. Your very language suggests it. "If people weren't such greedy bastards, we could all just pay "our fair share" of what we need" It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn. It's not greedy to believe that california's problem isn't that we don't spend enough on education -- we spend more now than ever before, but we're still rated 49 (thank god for mississippi) -- the problem, at least to me, is obviously one of admistration and accountability.
I'm prepared to write you off as uninformed. 7.77% as the highest income tax in CA? 6% income tax? And you say you LIVE in CA? How can you not notice?
So, let me get this straight: It's perfectly fine that my mom is paying only 0.08% of the market value of her home in annual property taxes, and that millions of other homeowners are paying similar rates, because it "brings business into the state."
Did you read the artcile I cited? Or just the part where I indicated one of the big benefits of Prop 13? I don't disagree that the rate of property tax increases are too low -- however, why did this provision of Prop 13 pass? Because property values in CA were (and still are) climbing at a rate where home buyers wouldn't be able to afford their yearly property tax 5-10 years after buying their house. Try reading the article I cited.
Well, what about the big-box retail revolution? Do you know what that's about? I do. It so happens that, now that jurisdictions cannot count on any inflation-adjusted revenue from residential property, they all fight over big retail outfits that will bring in tons of sales taxes. *Fight* over them, because there's not enough of them to go around. They offer them huge concessions *on top of* the tax breaks they already get. The cities end up cutting off their noses to spite their face, paying huge amounts of non-monetary costs in increased traffic, pollution, noise, and safety issues, so that they can get enough sales taxes to pay for their schools. Oh, guess what? Those stores aren't the ones paying the sales tax. The consumers are.
How about some sources? I'm not buying it. If what you suggest is true, businesses wouldn't be leaving california in droves and california wouldn't be listed as one of the WORST 'business friendly' states in the union. Thank god for mississippi.
It doesn't matter how much business you bring into a place if it doesn't pay its way. In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are. The aerospace industry packed up and moved to Texas regardless of Proposition 13. The proposition has destroyed our social infrastructure, and I don't need a newspaper to tell me that... I've *experienced* it growing up in California.
It's too bad your "experience" doesn't mirror statistics.
One of the interesting things I found about the article was the listing of some of his "usernames". I checked my ebay transactions a while back and found I had one with one of his accounts. I had received a broken proxim wireless modem. I mean broken -- it rattled, the case was cracked etc.
I looked at his feedback and checked on some of his older positive feedback transactions and found that the pay-pal link was identical to the one I had purchased from. I sent a mail to THAT user saying basically "You are [BLANK] I know this because the paypal links on both user's auctions point to the same account. How about you either refund my money or send me a working item and I let this go".
He said he was the BROTHER... blah. I think the idea of getting reported scared him enough that he sent out a WORKING modem.
Moral of the story: If it's an item that's going to cost you more than what you can comfortably lose, check the old feedback for anything suspicious -- like identical paypal links, a lot of 1 or 0 feedback bidders (shills), and even how LONG the account has existed. One month? Two? A few years? The longer an account has been around with a decent amount of feedback are USUALLY good indicators.
Geez, get over yourself, you leftest sheep. I live in CA and my company *WAS* effected by the rolling blackouts. You think the answer to that is to tax my employeer out of the state? Or to tax me out of the state? Get real and take off those rose colored glasses.
You've got no clue as to the history of the energy crisis in CA OR how California dealt with it. You just want to blame Enron, or people "whining" about high taxes.
Davis's problem was making sure his constituents had assured electric power. You know, that stuff that runs through wires that nobody can do business without?
Davis's problem was that he didn't pay attention to all the warning from various sources. Davis's problem was that he chose to bail out the near bankrupt power companies with BONDS rather than biting the bullet with the general fund. He's raiding the people and businesses of CA for decades rather than deal with an $8 billion shortfall for one year. Davis's problem was lying to the voter's of california about the depth of the deficit, his plans for dealing with it and his quid pro quo tactics.
Davis's problem is that he's not a leader, he's a CLIENT. A client of all those willing to pay his fee. You pay, you get what you want. That's Davis's problem.
Look for the truth. You'll find it even in leftest rags like the SACBEE.
I hate discussions with demagogs. Just talking REASON aganist one makes me feel like I'm that far on the OTHER side. I'm not. Because many people believe Davis is rancid butter for CA doesn't make them right wing wackos. My friends at Enron indeed.
The main (claimed) reason for the Republican efforts to get the recall has been the budget deficit.
You need to remember significant number of those who signed those petitions were democrats. That said, the deficit was only an ancillary reason for the recall. The main reasons are that he lied about how bad the budget was to get re-elcted, nasty episodes of quid pro quo:
Wayne Johnson, president of the California Teachers Association, recounted a Feb. 14 meeting with the governor. "We were just sitting there talking and he just out of the blue said, 'You know, I really need a million dollars from you guys,'" Johnson said. "It was really very funny. There was this awkward silence."
He also lied about his plans to raise taxes. These were just SOME of the things he was proposing just DAYS after he was re-elected on a platform which promised no new taxes or spending cuts:
Taxing internet commerce, raising income tax to 11%, raising sales tax to over 9% which would push it to close to and even over 10% in some counties, and raising car registration 300% (Oh yeah, he snuck that one in already).
Again, I can't stress this enough, to say that the recall is because of the deficit is to completely misunderstand not only the budget, but how the voters were hoodwinked by lies and misdirection. To say "Getting 1 million signatures is no big deal for either of the two big parties. Should we have another recall next summer?" is to completely look over the fact that if it was *SO* easy, it would have been done some time over the last 100 or so years the mechinism has existed and is completely a red herring. This is the first time in California history this has happened.
This "evil democrats"/"evil republicans" rhetoric is getting us nowhere. Let it go.
The bonds would be paid off by the top 180,000 of the utility's large and medium-sized business consumers. Homeowners and smaller businesses would not be burdened with the cost.
Like I said, it's been passed to rate payers. This one single example dates back to 2001 -- there are others more recent. Those numbers aren't listed in CA's budget as expenditures so aren't part of the deficit at all.
Businesses don't locate their plant facilities as a matter of social conscience. Businesses locate their plant facilities to make an after-tax rate of return for their shareholders. And taxes do matter. They matter a lot. California and Arizona both prove that point.
#1 What does Bush have to do with the Davis recall?
#2 a US ANYTHING of Bush is the USs business. Bugger off.
#3 The "record" deficit, as you put it is, when adjusted for inflation, quite smaller than that under Roosevelt and Truman. What did they have to deal with? Oh yeah. A rancid economy and a war. At least TRY to be interesting and not a leftest sheep. Or a right wing sheep for that matter.
Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.
Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.
This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.
I think you missed the point of my message. The state debt isn't related to the energy crisis -- they are unrelated. The cost of electricity has been passed on to the consumer. The $40 billion budget deficit is on TOP of that.
You need to remember, the state's answer to the energy scam was to raise consumer rates to pay the bloated expenses over the next decade or two. This is on top of a nearly 10% state sales tax and over 10% state income tax -- and NOT including the proposed income tax for county and city. How much can a state take away from it's citizins?
This *problem* is more related to the state legislature than Davis alone -- he just SIGNED all the spending bills -- the state house and assembly had to pass them. We need a gov who'll tell them to "get stuffed" -- not someone trying to make EVERYONE happy so he'll have a shot to use california as a spring-board to the whitehouse.
And isn't that expense being passed on to the consumer and not in the state budget at all? So, basically what your saying is that the $40 billion budget "shortfall" could be viewed as $70 billion or $90 billion when you factor in the additional costs of electricity as a "taxpayer" expense.
Seriously. Review Whitney v. California. In summary:
Whitney v California (1927) 274 US 357, 71 L Ed 1095, 47 S Ct 641, it was held that the constitutional guaranties of free speech and free press did not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation,
except where such advocacy was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action.
He has the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, otherwise known as the first article in the Bill of Rights, to say what he wants, where he wants and when he wants, without fear of goverment action.
The first amendment? You mean this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sure doesn't look like his objective was either to be 'peaceably' or to attempt to 'petition' the government. Looks like it was to violently oppose a government that was democratically elected and could quite as easily be democratically replaced -- if such a notion was popular.
Big difference between free speech and saying we need to violently overthrow the government -- and by the way, this is how. This guy appeared to advocating and inciting insurrection, not mearly engaging in 'free speech'.
This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
It's not so clear when the guy said in open court he was guilty of the charges against him. If he plans to try to appeal, he's got an uphill (hell, a smooth wall) to climb.
Moral: If you didn't do anything wrong, don't say you did.
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellionor Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it's working. It yanks.pif, .exe, .com, .bat -- basically everything exploitable REGARDLESS if it finds a virus or not. There's only been three files since monday that it yanked that didn't scan as viruses. Two were multiple extensions (like "Some.work.pdf") and the other was a .exe for an MSAccess viewer. All were legit files.
The Klez/Yaha hits astound me.
Aren't you lucky. Here's what our email server cought since Monday:
237 W32/Yaha-E
235 W32/Klez-H
009 W32/Sircam-A
004 W32/Bugbear-B
003 Dial/PecDial-B
002 W32/Yaha-K
002 Troj/Peido-B
001 W32/Sobig-F
001 W32/Klez-E
001 W32/Bugbear-Dam
Only one Sobig so far... But Klez and Yaha numbers have been high for months. Too many of our users have front-facing email addresses (posted on our corporate website).
My experience has been that anything relating to win32 and RDBs is far more time consuming.
Linux troll indeed.
I've migrated from various flavors of Win servers (NT (old and new), 2k) and various flavors of linux -- both for work and home. I completely agree. Hands down, moving from one machine to another using in linux takes me about a 10th of the time.
Even database migration has been easy. Can't say that for the win environment. I had a nightmare moving one client from interbase on NT4 to MS SQL2k on win2k.
BUT, I work with what I'm given.
The funny thing is that many *nix admins (me included) would react to an exploited/owned machine the same way. Funny.
As far as provding sources, I've provided quite a few in previous posts. Take some personal responsibility and LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You've provided NOTHING to back up any claim you've made. Here's another example of an outragous claim made by you:Yet a simple google news search yields indications that it's NOT everywhere -- and many cities and states are improving. Why not check where they are listed on the "business friendly" states? PA, OH, TX, IL are among many of the states doing better. Many cities are seeing the unemployment rate, which had been rising, starting to stablize and should hopefully drop in the near future.
And here's another outragous claim of yours with no back up material:
Again, sources? I've not seen anything that makes that claim, yet I've seen this which appears to contradict you. From the article:
In inflation-adjusted dollars, per-pupil spending in California was 60 percent higher in 1994-95 than in 1969-70
And this much more recent article also appears to contradict your claims. From the article:The fact is we spend over $200,000 per class room on average -- subtract the average teacher's salary of about $50k and you have $150k in overhead. There's a problem there. Thats around $7000-$8000 per student in public school while private schools in CA average around $3500/student and do a far better job. We were spending too much in the 70's without getting a justified return. It's far worse now.
I'm satisfied. Your a demagog. And ill-informed. And lazy. And you're willing to pay what I consider to be unreasonable taxes -- so long as no single tax is "too much" as to notice it. Those nibbles all add up.
A total maximum of a 50% tax burden is not unreasonable. Talks of a 50% federal bracket ALONE scare the bejeezus out of me.
The sales tax in CA is, and has been for some time, 7.25%.In LA it's 8.25%. Davis wanted to raise this to 8.25% early on after he was elected promising not to raise taxes. This would bring LA up to 9.25%. All these are are alot closer to 10% than, as you try to minimize as 5%. The highest tax rate in california as of 01/01/2003 is 9.6%. Davis was talking, very soon after the election of raising that to 11%. BTW, last year, the year you claim the highest tax was 7.77%, is in fact 9.3%. You better have your accountant look over your income tax for last year -- I think you're screwed.
Added to this, if the proposed assembly bill AB1690 gets passed, you can add an additional income tax to your county and city.
I'm of the opinion that you are a demagog and no amount of reason or source material or logic is going to change your opinion. Your very language suggests it. "If people weren't such greedy bastards, we could all just pay "our fair share" of what we need" It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn. It's not greedy to believe that california's problem isn't that we don't spend enough on education -- we spend more now than ever before, but we're still rated 49 (thank god for mississippi) -- the problem, at least to me, is obviously one of admistration and accountability.
I'm prepared to write you off as uninformed. 7.77% as the highest income tax in CA? 6% income tax? And you say you LIVE in CA? How can you not notice?
I did my part. I reported him as possibily shilling. That's all I thought he was doing. Hindsight sure is 20/20, huh?
One of the interesting things I found about the article was the listing of some of his "usernames". I checked my ebay transactions a while back and found I had one with one of his accounts. I had received a broken proxim wireless modem. I mean broken -- it rattled, the case was cracked etc.
I looked at his feedback and checked on some of his older positive feedback transactions and found that the pay-pal link was identical to the one I had purchased from. I sent a mail to THAT user saying basically "You are [BLANK] I know this because the paypal links on both user's auctions point to the same account. How about you either refund my money or send me a working item and I let this go".
He said he was the BROTHER... blah. I think the idea of getting reported scared him enough that he sent out a WORKING modem.
Moral of the story: If it's an item that's going to cost you more than what you can comfortably lose, check the old feedback for anything suspicious -- like identical paypal links, a lot of 1 or 0 feedback bidders (shills), and even how LONG the account has existed. One month? Two? A few years? The longer an account has been around with a decent amount of feedback are USUALLY good indicators.
You wanted it, you got it!
Geez, get over yourself, you leftest sheep. I live in CA and my company *WAS* effected by the rolling blackouts. You think the answer to that is to tax my employeer out of the state? Or to tax me out of the state? Get real and take off those rose colored glasses.
You've got no clue as to the history of the energy crisis in CA OR how California dealt with it. You just want to blame Enron, or people "whining" about high taxes.
Davis's problem was that he didn't pay attention to all the warning from various sources. Davis's problem was that he chose to bail out the near bankrupt power companies with BONDS rather than biting the bullet with the general fund. He's raiding the people and businesses of CA for decades rather than deal with an $8 billion shortfall for one year. Davis's problem was lying to the voter's of california about the depth of the deficit, his plans for dealing with it and his quid pro quo tactics.
Davis's problem is that he's not a leader, he's a CLIENT. A client of all those willing to pay his fee. You pay, you get what you want. That's Davis's problem.
Look for the truth. You'll find it even in leftest rags like the SACBEE.
I hate discussions with demagogs. Just talking REASON aganist one makes me feel like I'm that far on the OTHER side. I'm not. Because many people believe Davis is rancid butter for CA doesn't make them right wing wackos. My friends at Enron indeed.
He also lied about his plans to raise taxes. These were just SOME of the things he was proposing just DAYS after he was re-elected on a platform which promised no new taxes or spending cuts:
Taxing internet commerce, raising income tax to 11%, raising sales tax to over 9% which would push it to close to and even over 10% in some counties, and raising car registration 300% (Oh yeah, he snuck that one in already).
Again, I can't stress this enough, to say that the recall is because of the deficit is to completely misunderstand not only the budget, but how the voters were hoodwinked by lies and misdirection. To say "Getting 1 million signatures is no big deal for either of the two big parties. Should we have another recall next summer?" is to completely look over the fact that if it was *SO* easy, it would have been done some time over the last 100 or so years the mechinism has existed and is completely a red herring. This is the first time in California history this has happened.
This "evil democrats"/"evil republicans" rhetoric is getting us nowhere. Let it go.
I don't think you or the others who quote that article understand how bond's work. Read THIS
And as you say, "Oh, and as long as we're talking about tax issues", this is a pretty good observation of what Prop 13 did for CA -- and similar thinking in AZ.
From the article:
#1 What does Bush have to do with the Davis recall?
#2 a US ANYTHING of Bush is the USs business. Bugger off.
#3 The "record" deficit, as you put it is, when adjusted for inflation, quite smaller than that under Roosevelt and Truman. What did they have to deal with? Oh yeah. A rancid economy and a war. At least TRY to be interesting and not a leftest sheep. Or a right wing sheep for that matter.
I think you missed something somewhere.
Check out this article
Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.
Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.
This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.
I think you missed the point of my message. The state debt isn't related to the energy crisis -- they are unrelated. The cost of electricity has been passed on to the consumer. The $40 billion budget deficit is on TOP of that.
You need to remember, the state's answer to the energy scam was to raise consumer rates to pay the bloated expenses over the next decade or two. This is on top of a nearly 10% state sales tax and over 10% state income tax -- and NOT including the proposed income tax for county and city. How much can a state take away from it's citizins?
This *problem* is more related to the state legislature than Davis alone -- he just SIGNED all the spending bills -- the state house and assembly had to pass them. We need a gov who'll tell them to "get stuffed" -- not someone trying to make EVERYONE happy so he'll have a shot to use california as a spring-board to the whitehouse.
And isn't that expense being passed on to the consumer and not in the state budget at all? So, basically what your saying is that the $40 billion budget "shortfall" could be viewed as $70 billion or $90 billion when you factor in the additional costs of electricity as a "taxpayer" expense.
Seriously. Review Whitney v. California. In summary:
The first amendment? You mean this:
Sure doesn't look like his objective was either to be 'peaceably' or to attempt to 'petition' the government. Looks like it was to violently oppose a government that was democratically elected and could quite as easily be democratically replaced -- if such a notion was popular.
Big difference between free speech and saying we need to violently overthrow the government -- and by the way, this is how. This guy appeared to advocating and inciting insurrection, not mearly engaging in 'free speech'.
Moral: If you didn't do anything wrong, don't say you did.
Two words: Rube Goldberg
-jhon