Nope, it doesn't. It must run as root, in order to bind to its port, which is in the privileged range. However, as per Unix Best Current Practices, it drops root after binding to the port.
The key only exists on the server, the clients never see it. They just see a normal mount via NFS, SMB, or whatever.
That makes even less sense. How does the server authenticate the client? If the server just decrypts and serves up the data to any client that connects, what's the use of encrypting? And if the server requires authentication to serve up the data, it could implement access controls just as easily. That leaves you with keeping data secret from other users/the administrators/someone with a warrant. That's what per-user encryption is for.
I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced volume encryption makes sense in this particular scenario.
There is really no advantage to encrypting data if you have other means to restrict access to a server.
Volume encryption only makes sense if there is a significant risk of losing physical control over the volume, i.e. on portable media. If your hypothetical server with private information is not in a secure datacenter, you're doing something wrong.
So, considering that a fileserver will have some form of access control anyway (in case of this NAS box, the locks on his house), why encrypt the entire volume in the first place? The first insecure client that connects makes the whole exercise moot, not to mention giving out the key to multiple users. And if there is no access control, neither physical nor logical, then it is just a local disk connected to a network instead of directly to a (S)ATA/SCSI bus. And local disk encryption is old hat.
Seeing as that he uses per-volume encryption, this is pretty useless. It makes his 'server' pretty much a single-user NAS box, because as soon as another user gets an account to access the file server, they get access to the data.
Data encryption on a fileserver only makes sense if it is done on a per-user level. This is not News for Nerds, as this is basically just another implementation of how to encrypt your local disk.
Well, the GNOME project has a point. The minute I must configure my computer, it is not doing what I want. A system with sensible defaults should Just Work(tm).
Personally, I would like my desktop and my window manager to get out of my way as soon as I log in. I'm not interested in configuration, I'm interested in getting work done, and the more I have to tweak options, the less time I spend on my actual work.
Now, totally abandoning configurability means that an integrator cannot configure the system for end users, so that is no solution. Happily, GNOME has not abandoned configurability at all, but just moved it out of the purview of the user, and into the realm of the developers and the distributors, who still have plenty of options to set for the end product. It's just that they are not afforded the copout of "I don't want to think of a sensible default, so I'll just create another option for the user to set."
And if you are really unhappy with the default settings, you can still dig into the config files and edit them. Or use KDE. I fail to see the problem.
It is possible to deny the moral underpinnings of law. However, you then end up in Nietzschean nihilism: morality is whatever you have the power to enforce; those who have the power to write the law decide what is moral and what not.
We all know that there is only one possible final outcome to that kind of thinking.
Morals have no place in an argument about rights and law. Rights are self evident and law exists to protect them.
You do realise that holding on to that contradiction just shows how fucking stupid you are, right?
I'll spell it out for you, so that you can see just what a moron you are: if rights are self evident and law exists to protect them, it is therefore ipso facto the right thing to do to protect and respect rights, and the wrong thing to do to violate them. This is a moral judgment.
If there is no moral basis to judge respecting or violating rights, then the expression of protection of these rights in law becomes a mere expression of the preferences of those who wrote the laws.
Since you keep denying the latter proposition, you are left with no other possibility than to affirm that morals do have a place in a discussion on rights and law. But seeing as that you deny that also...
Now, I wouldn't mind if you hadn't seen that contradiction, and were just honestly mistaken. But since you start blabbing about the philosophical basis of the US Constitution, name-dropping John Locke of all people (who definitely believed that morals had a place in a discussion on rights), your utterances must be judged in that context, and they make no sense at all.
Pray tell, what is Debian doing without due to trademark issues? Even Firefox and Thunderbird are in main, just under another name with different artwork, to stay away from the trademark dispute.
It is better to shut up and make people think you're wise, than to open your mouth and prove the opposite.
And the fun thing is that WotC got their fingers burned by a related IP case as well. I don't know if this was before or after the Palladium flap (I believe it was after), but they got caught distributing some material by Kenzer & Company without clearing it first.
Now KenzerCo is the hobby company of one David S. Kenzer, who in real life is an attorney specialising in IP law. Ouch.
From what I understand, this is how KenzerCo got to be one of the very few third parties to actually publish a fully licensed D&D 3.x setting. Apparently, Mr. Kenzer took the license as settlement for WotC's infringement.
I may have a few details wrong, but this is the gist of the matter. Disclaimer: I currently DM a campaign in KenzerCo's Kalamar setting, and I really like it.
Quite true, but the problem is that popular science publications make no effort to distinguish habituation from addiction, leading to idiots like my parent poster to equate them. And in fact, even otherwise respectable scientists, in their crusade against tobacco, see no reason to not blur this distinction either, which strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, and also giving aid and comfort to the puritanical nutjobs.
I'd LOVE to take you up on that challenge. You buying?
Slow down Cowboy! You're making the assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. You're trying to weasel out from under your own bald claims.
And, don't be dense - LSD isn't addictive. Not. Even. A. Little. Bit.
I didn't equate it with nicotine. You did.
I'll match each day you smoke Marlboro Lights with four daily doses of cocaine. At the end of a week, you're on. Relapse time period, three months to prove it.
Yech, Marlboro Lights. Tell you what, I'll agree to a regimen of four pipes a day of Peterson University Flake. That tastes at least decent, and it delivers quite a bit more nicotine than a pack of Marlboro Lights. That ought to make the comparison more fair, right?
Just like some other people here, all propaganda, no experience.
I see. Never mind, you're not interested in a fair comparison, or even the facts. You dismiss all counterclaims outright. Do something about that beam in your eye, brother, and let me worry about the splinter in mine own, alright?
Cigarettes a higher spike of nicotine than pipe tobacco? WOOHAHAHAAA!
Sorry. I tend to prefer the stronger English blends, such as Lakeland Flakes, and the various strong blends by Peterson, like Sherlock Holmes or Irish Whiskey, and let me tell you, these pack more of a wallop per draw than any cigarette blend I've ever smoked. Hell, my weakest tobacco is Troost Slices, and the occasional time my girlfriend tries to take a puff, she'll be bouncing around the room after two hits.
I have hankering to try a Lakeland twist or even a rope someday. They are supposed to be really strong. And I do have a few small-bowl pipes that would be perfect for this.
I'll offer you a wager: You take some cocaine or LSD, and then try to quit. At the same time, I'll give up my one-pipe-a-day tobacco habit (and I smoke very nicotine-heavy tobaccos, like Peterson Irish Whiskey). After two weeks of quitting, we'll see who is worse off.
Care to take me up on this wager? No? Thought so.
The problem is not the addictive properties of nicotine. Nicotine withdrawal is about three days of feeling lightly dizzy and suffering concentration problems, then the physical effects of addiction are overcome. The problem is that smoking is habit-forming, and it is the habit that is hard to kick, not the nicotine addiction. Most of the problem is that most quitters that relapse don't actually want to quit, but try to because of social or financial pressures. With insufficient motivation to kick the habit, it is easy to relapse. Hence a relapse rate of some 95% for smokers.
Actually, I ride a 1994 Moto Guzzi SPIII. The engine is a basic upgrade of their original pushrod twin from the late sixties, but it works. It puts out 70hp on the crankshaft, has enough power to smoothly merge on the motorway, and an amazingly broad powerband that gives me plenty of power in the entire 3000-7000rpm range, so I almost never have to shift, except in city traffic. And the engine is so simple that even if I were to let my dealer do all the service on it, I still am much cheaper off had I bought a more modern motorcycle.
Sometimes, old with minor upgrades is the way to go. In fact, in its whole philosophy of taking a good design and incrementally improving it, this motorcycle reminds me a lot of Unix and its derivatives.
You're an American, right? This brand of stupidity seems exclusive to the U.S.
You are claiming 'Judeo-Christianity' believes in a flood myth despite geological evidence to the contrary.
If I take your statement literally and dispute it, due to their being grounds for people in Mesopotamia to believe in global flooding, you start complaining that I shouldn't take your statement literally. Yet you expect Jews and Christians world-wide to conform to your image of American literalists.
Parent was not asserting the silliness of literalism. Parent was quite literally denying geological evidence for a flood myth. If he meant that there is no evidence for the global flood myth as espoused by the American fundie nutjobs, then he should have said so. Worse, he implied that Christianity subscribes to a literal belief in a global flood myth, thereby implying that your typically American brand of idiots is the norm for Christians worldwide.
Either he was conflating a reasonable interpretation of the flood myth with the literalist one, or he was unclear in his communication. He also was generalising something that five minutes of research would show to be a false generalisation. That does indeed make him not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And the fact that you do not see the insult in his generalisation, and take cheap pot shots at someone who may be the target of that insult for being outraged, is rather telling.
Expecting to be an idiot in public and not be called on it is...naive, at best.
Well, as I pointed out, for the ones caught in a dramatic flood in ancient Mesopotamia, it may well have looked global. One does not need to be a biblical literalist to think there is some historical inspiration for the myth. Just as it is quite reasonable to postulate that the Atlantis myth is inspired by the devastation the Thera eruption wrought on Minoan Crete.
Unfortunately, trying to point out that biblical events may not wholly be made up out of whole cloth inevitably brings down the ire of the atheist lynch mobs on this site.
And as for my opinion on the particular U.S. brand of nutjob fundamentalism, well...
You state there is overwhelming geological evidence against the flood myth. I point out that there is plenty evidence for floods big enough that the victims in that day and age could reasonably conclude that it was global. Since you don't deny the rather dramatic periodic flooding of the Euphrates-Tigris region, that leaves your geological evidence rather underwhelming.
Yes, you're an idiot. You hold Christians to an untenable standard of literality, but you start crying like a baby if I even begin to think of taking your hyperbole literally.
If [Judeo-Christianity] can maintain a flood myth in the face of a overwhelming geological evidence to the contrary
Are you seriously disputing geological and historical evidence of regular flooding in the Euphrates-Tigris region? Of course there is no geological evidence of a global flood, but it says something that just about every culture from that region has a flood myth. And remember, without mass communications, a flood that reaches as far as the eye can see may as well be global.
Truly, just as you think people can't get any dumber, up pops another idiot to disprove the theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it doesn't. It must run as root, in order to bind to its port, which is in the privileged range. However, as per Unix Best Current Practices, it drops root after binding to the port.
MartI don't even live in the States and I know people that occasionally drink bourbon.
You do realise that usually what is produced as 'whiskey' in the U.S. is in fact bourbon, right?
MartThat makes even less sense. How does the server authenticate the client? If the server just decrypts and serves up the data to any client that connects, what's the use of encrypting? And if the server requires authentication to serve up the data, it could implement access controls just as easily. That leaves you with keeping data secret from other users/the administrators/someone with a warrant. That's what per-user encryption is for.
I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced volume encryption makes sense in this particular scenario.
MartThere is really no advantage to encrypting data if you have other means to restrict access to a server.
Volume encryption only makes sense if there is a significant risk of losing physical control over the volume, i.e. on portable media. If your hypothetical server with private information is not in a secure datacenter, you're doing something wrong.
So, considering that a fileserver will have some form of access control anyway (in case of this NAS box, the locks on his house), why encrypt the entire volume in the first place? The first insecure client that connects makes the whole exercise moot, not to mention giving out the key to multiple users. And if there is no access control, neither physical nor logical, then it is just a local disk connected to a network instead of directly to a (S)ATA/SCSI bus. And local disk encryption is old hat.
MartSeeing as that he uses per-volume encryption, this is pretty useless. It makes his 'server' pretty much a single-user NAS box, because as soon as another user gets an account to access the file server, they get access to the data.
Data encryption on a fileserver only makes sense if it is done on a per-user level. This is not News for Nerds, as this is basically just another implementation of how to encrypt your local disk.
MartThe archtypical US spirit is bourbon. Funny, that is supposed to be (by law!) 51% corn alcohol.
So, none of your acquaintances ever drink bourbon?
MartWell, the GNOME project has a point. The minute I must configure my computer, it is not doing what I want. A system with sensible defaults should Just Work(tm).
Personally, I would like my desktop and my window manager to get out of my way as soon as I log in. I'm not interested in configuration, I'm interested in getting work done, and the more I have to tweak options, the less time I spend on my actual work.
Now, totally abandoning configurability means that an integrator cannot configure the system for end users, so that is no solution. Happily, GNOME has not abandoned configurability at all, but just moved it out of the purview of the user, and into the realm of the developers and the distributors, who still have plenty of options to set for the end product. It's just that they are not afforded the copout of "I don't want to think of a sensible default, so I'll just create another option for the user to set."
And if you are really unhappy with the default settings, you can still dig into the config files and edit them. Or use KDE. I fail to see the problem.
MartNot quite.
It is possible to deny the moral underpinnings of law. However, you then end up in Nietzschean nihilism: morality is whatever you have the power to enforce; those who have the power to write the law decide what is moral and what not.
We all know that there is only one possible final outcome to that kind of thinking.
MartYou do realise that holding on to that contradiction just shows how fucking stupid you are, right?
I'll spell it out for you, so that you can see just what a moron you are: if rights are self evident and law exists to protect them, it is therefore ipso facto the right thing to do to protect and respect rights, and the wrong thing to do to violate them. This is a moral judgment.
If there is no moral basis to judge respecting or violating rights, then the expression of protection of these rights in law becomes a mere expression of the preferences of those who wrote the laws.
Since you keep denying the latter proposition, you are left with no other possibility than to affirm that morals do have a place in a discussion on rights and law. But seeing as that you deny that also...
Now, I wouldn't mind if you hadn't seen that contradiction, and were just honestly mistaken. But since you start blabbing about the philosophical basis of the US Constitution, name-dropping John Locke of all people (who definitely believed that morals had a place in a discussion on rights), your utterances must be judged in that context, and they make no sense at all.
MartPray tell, what is Debian doing without due to trademark issues? Even Firefox and Thunderbird are in main, just under another name with different artwork, to stay away from the trademark dispute.
It is better to shut up and make people think you're wise, than to open your mouth and prove the opposite.
MartA particularly ironic statement, since it is you that is whining on getting counterarguments.
MartAnd the fun thing is that WotC got their fingers burned by a related IP case as well. I don't know if this was before or after the Palladium flap (I believe it was after), but they got caught distributing some material by Kenzer & Company without clearing it first.
Now KenzerCo is the hobby company of one David S. Kenzer, who in real life is an attorney specialising in IP law. Ouch.
From what I understand, this is how KenzerCo got to be one of the very few third parties to actually publish a fully licensed D&D 3.x setting. Apparently, Mr. Kenzer took the license as settlement for WotC's infringement.
I may have a few details wrong, but this is the gist of the matter. Disclaimer: I currently DM a campaign in KenzerCo's Kalamar setting, and I really like it.
MartSo that's two quotes predating 'Atlas Shrugged' saying the same thing. Once again Ayn Rand is shown up as the shamelessly derivative parrot she was.
MartQuite true, but the problem is that popular science publications make no effort to distinguish habituation from addiction, leading to idiots like my parent poster to equate them. And in fact, even otherwise respectable scientists, in their crusade against tobacco, see no reason to not blur this distinction either, which strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, and also giving aid and comfort to the puritanical nutjobs.
MartSlow down Cowboy! You're making the assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. You're trying to weasel out from under your own bald claims.
I didn't equate it with nicotine. You did.
Yech, Marlboro Lights. Tell you what, I'll agree to a regimen of four pipes a day of Peterson University Flake. That tastes at least decent, and it delivers quite a bit more nicotine than a pack of Marlboro Lights. That ought to make the comparison more fair, right?
I see. Never mind, you're not interested in a fair comparison, or even the facts. You dismiss all counterclaims outright. Do something about that beam in your eye, brother, and let me worry about the splinter in mine own, alright?
MartCigarettes a higher spike of nicotine than pipe tobacco? WOOHAHAHAAA!
Sorry. I tend to prefer the stronger English blends, such as Lakeland Flakes, and the various strong blends by Peterson, like Sherlock Holmes or Irish Whiskey, and let me tell you, these pack more of a wallop per draw than any cigarette blend I've ever smoked. Hell, my weakest tobacco is Troost Slices, and the occasional time my girlfriend tries to take a puff, she'll be bouncing around the room after two hits.
I have hankering to try a Lakeland twist or even a rope someday. They are supposed to be really strong. And I do have a few small-bowl pipes that would be perfect for this.
MartI'll offer you a wager: You take some cocaine or LSD, and then try to quit. At the same time, I'll give up my one-pipe-a-day tobacco habit (and I smoke very nicotine-heavy tobaccos, like Peterson Irish Whiskey). After two weeks of quitting, we'll see who is worse off.
Care to take me up on this wager? No? Thought so.
The problem is not the addictive properties of nicotine. Nicotine withdrawal is about three days of feeling lightly dizzy and suffering concentration problems, then the physical effects of addiction are overcome. The problem is that smoking is habit-forming, and it is the habit that is hard to kick, not the nicotine addiction. Most of the problem is that most quitters that relapse don't actually want to quit, but try to because of social or financial pressures. With insufficient motivation to kick the habit, it is easy to relapse. Hence a relapse rate of some 95% for smokers.
MartActually, I ride a 1994 Moto Guzzi SPIII. The engine is a basic upgrade of their original pushrod twin from the late sixties, but it works. It puts out 70hp on the crankshaft, has enough power to smoothly merge on the motorway, and an amazingly broad powerband that gives me plenty of power in the entire 3000-7000rpm range, so I almost never have to shift, except in city traffic. And the engine is so simple that even if I were to let my dealer do all the service on it, I still am much cheaper off had I bought a more modern motorcycle.
Sometimes, old with minor upgrades is the way to go. In fact, in its whole philosophy of taking a good design and incrementally improving it, this motorcycle reminds me a lot of Unix and its derivatives.
MartOf course, it would help if you had actually used a Linux distribution more recent than a 2002 vintage.
Then again, no OS is idiot-proof, the universe will just throw up a better idiot, which you amply demonstrated.
MartWorse, in those 13 years, Microsoft has re-implemented some of those complaints.
This is doubly ironic considering that one of the main editors of the Unix Haters Handbook actually works for Microsoft.
MartYou're an American, right? This brand of stupidity seems exclusive to the U.S.
You are claiming 'Judeo-Christianity' believes in a flood myth despite geological evidence to the contrary.
If I take your statement literally and dispute it, due to their being grounds for people in Mesopotamia to believe in global flooding, you start complaining that I shouldn't take your statement literally. Yet you expect Jews and Christians world-wide to conform to your image of American literalists.
Now who is the obtuse one here?
MartParent was not asserting the silliness of literalism. Parent was quite literally denying geological evidence for a flood myth. If he meant that there is no evidence for the global flood myth as espoused by the American fundie nutjobs, then he should have said so. Worse, he implied that Christianity subscribes to a literal belief in a global flood myth, thereby implying that your typically American brand of idiots is the norm for Christians worldwide.
Either he was conflating a reasonable interpretation of the flood myth with the literalist one, or he was unclear in his communication. He also was generalising something that five minutes of research would show to be a false generalisation. That does indeed make him not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And the fact that you do not see the insult in his generalisation, and take cheap pot shots at someone who may be the target of that insult for being outraged, is rather telling.
Expecting to be an idiot in public and not be called on it is...naive, at best.
MartWell, as I pointed out, for the ones caught in a dramatic flood in ancient Mesopotamia, it may well have looked global. One does not need to be a biblical literalist to think there is some historical inspiration for the myth. Just as it is quite reasonable to postulate that the Atlantis myth is inspired by the devastation the Thera eruption wrought on Minoan Crete.
Unfortunately, trying to point out that biblical events may not wholly be made up out of whole cloth inevitably brings down the ire of the atheist lynch mobs on this site.
And as for my opinion on the particular U.S. brand of nutjob fundamentalism, well...
MartYou state there is overwhelming geological evidence against the flood myth. I point out that there is plenty evidence for floods big enough that the victims in that day and age could reasonably conclude that it was global. Since you don't deny the rather dramatic periodic flooding of the Euphrates-Tigris region, that leaves your geological evidence rather underwhelming.
Yes, you're an idiot. You hold Christians to an untenable standard of literality, but you start crying like a baby if I even begin to think of taking your hyperbole literally.
MartAre you seriously disputing geological and historical evidence of regular flooding in the Euphrates-Tigris region? Of course there is no geological evidence of a global flood, but it says something that just about every culture from that region has a flood myth. And remember, without mass communications, a flood that reaches as far as the eye can see may as well be global.
Truly, just as you think people can't get any dumber, up pops another idiot to disprove the theory.
Mart