Shoulda been:
Denzel Washington (Det. Alonzo Harris) is amazing as a rogue LAPD narc who's turning his new rookie partner Ethan Hawke (Jake Hoyt)...
No, it shouldn't have been. This reads to me like Alonzo's partner is Ethan Hawke, played by Jake Hoyt. Katz's wording is actually better. If you're gong to pick nits, it should brobably read more like this:
Denzel Washington is amazing as Det. Alonzo Harris, a rogue LAPS narc who is turning his new rookie partner, Jake Hoyt (played by Ethan Hawke) to the dark side.
The "silly plot twist featuring a Russian mafia" WAS the point of the movie. The whole movie is about Alonzo covering his ass for something he did to a member of the Russian mafia. Katz obviously failed to grasp that. Hoyt discovers Alonzo's duplicity after Alonzo's failed attempt to set him up, and goes on a rampage to bring him to justice.
This film also highlights how easy it is for a one-time good cop (Alonzo) to get sucked into the corruption and greed that breeds drug dealers, when you're exposed to them on a daily basis (much like many other cop corruption flicks, so nothing new there).
This movie was excellent. The premise of the film isn't exactly ground-breaking territory, but it was treated well. There were only a few small logical inconsistencies near the end of the film, which I think can easily be overlooked in the shadow of an overall great effort by a great cast in a well-written flick.
John Katz should find something better to do with his spare time...
Yep I screwed up (hey, it's been a while since I had to deal with that crap), but that doesn't take away the validity of the rest of my post. MS password encryption is simple to break. It really only keeps honest people honest.
OS flame wars aside, unifying your logins is just a bad idea, from a security perspective. And if you're not concerned about security, then you may as well do away with passwords on your network entirely. You want to force them to use different passwords, and you want to force them to chose good passwords using some sort of password filtering program/library like cracklib, or if you must use NT, passfilt.dll (available in SP2 and later).
The problem with unifying your logins is of course that once an attacker has compromised ANY of your user's passwords, they now not only have access to your network, but they also have authenticated access to ANY resource which that user has access to. From here, it won't be long before they own your network.
Is this what you really want? Again, it isn't, if you care about security.
Now, because I gotta get my shots in, you also should not be doing your authentication on a Windows machine, because Windows-based authentication is inherently brain-dead.
If an attacker manages to get onto your network, they'll probably be able to sniff someone's password within about 5 minutes since Windows will use plain text unless you're in an all-NT/2000 environment. Once they have that, it will take about 2 minutes to get your password database. At this point, they can log off, crack passwords at their lesiure, and within about 4 hrs they'll have over 90% of your passwords using l0phtcrack (which, by the way, will happily sniff passwords off the network for you too).
You should use a solution that allows encrypted authentication, and that pretty much means Unix or a third-party authentication package for Windows. Throw AD away.
Yeah, but what are you doing about it? If you love this country, you and other geeks like you have to start speaking up about things that our government does that decrease our liberty. If you don't, it will only get worse.
There's a question that I never seem to be able to get an answer to: Protect the younger generation FROM WHAT? From violence and sex in video games? What about from the violence and sex in news programs and documentaries that appear on television at all hours of the day? Or from the real world, where they might see something like this in front of their own eyes? From the society we live in?
It's inescapable. Graphic, violent acts are committed every day by real people, probably in a city very near you. Sex is enjoyed (and rightfully so!) by BILLIONS of people on this planet. Don't hide your kids from these things, EDUCATE THEM.
It seems to me that when your child reaches such an age where this sort of thing becomes a concern, rather than sheild your children from these real-world topics, teach them about them. Teach them that shooting people is not cool, but playing war games can be just plain fun. Teach them the consequences of having sex... ALL of the consequences. Teach them that people who shoot people go to jail (o.k. sometimes they do). These things are a reality of the world we live in. Don't let them get just a part of the reality... EDUCATE THEM!
I grew up playing violent games, and I have never committed a violent act. Never. The concept that television and video games teach your children to be violent is pure poppycock. The reality of it is that HUMANS ARE VIOLENT! If you don't want your children to be violent, you need to teach them not to be. Only by educating them, training them, instilling them with moral values will you prevent your children from being wretches (or perhaps by blind luck). If you are afraid to do this, or incapable, or if it is too inconvenient for you, DON'T HAVE KIDS. Do the world, and them, a favor, and forgo parenthood.
...my Netscape session under Linux? I went there to see if this thing was Internet capable. Strikes me that the "V-Chip" will likely be used to TRACK what you play, as well as sensor it. Far be it from Microsoft to try such tactics. They wouldn't design their program registration applets to upload information about what's on your hard drive either... Oh wait, they DID do that, didn't they.
Of course, I might mind that less if downloading information from my HD actually made their products WORK. Needless to say I don't have a lot of faith that this company doesn't have alterior motives for putting a V-chip-like device in their machines, and I'm not really that enticed about the idea of a V-chip anyway.
Concerned your kids might be playing games that you consider inappropriate? LOOK AT THEM. Have rules about when they are allowed to play games, and lock the machine up when they're not allowed.
You don't need a V-chip. You just need to be a responsible parent. Heaven forbid. Can't be that? DON'T HAVE KIDS.
Think I'm bitter? Sarchastic? Nah, not me.
--
I'm brash
Slashdot Mirror
Denzel Washington (Det. Alonzo Harris) is amazing as a rogue LAPD narc who's turning his new rookie partner Ethan Hawke (Jake Hoyt)...
No, it shouldn't have been. This reads to me like Alonzo's partner is Ethan Hawke, played by Jake Hoyt. Katz's wording is actually better. If you're gong to pick nits, it should brobably read more like this:
- Denzel Washington is amazing as Det. Alonzo Harris, a rogue LAPS narc who is turning his new rookie partner, Jake Hoyt (played by Ethan Hawke) to the dark side.
You can't make it much clearer than that.The "silly plot twist featuring a Russian mafia" WAS the point of the movie. The whole movie is about Alonzo covering his ass for something he did to a member of the Russian mafia. Katz obviously failed to grasp that. Hoyt discovers Alonzo's duplicity after Alonzo's failed attempt to set him up, and goes on a rampage to bring him to justice.
This film also highlights how easy it is for a one-time good cop (Alonzo) to get sucked into the corruption and greed that breeds drug dealers, when you're exposed to them on a daily basis (much like many other cop corruption flicks, so nothing new there).
This movie was excellent. The premise of the film isn't exactly ground-breaking territory, but it was treated well. There were only a few small logical inconsistencies near the end of the film, which I think can easily be overlooked in the shadow of an overall great effort by a great cast in a well-written flick.
John Katz should find something better to do with his spare time...
Yeah moron, I know it's standard, and I also know it's STUPID. Just like you.
Yep I screwed up (hey, it's been a while since I had to deal with that crap), but that doesn't take away the validity of the rest of my post. MS password encryption is simple to break. It really only keeps honest people honest.
You're kinda slow, aren't you. The first reply is MAKING FUN of people who do what you're bitching about. Sit down, shut up, and read it again.
The problem with unifying your logins is of course that once an attacker has compromised ANY of your user's passwords, they now not only have access to your network, but they also have authenticated access to ANY resource which that user has access to. From here, it won't be long before they own your network.
Is this what you really want? Again, it isn't, if you care about security.
Now, because I gotta get my shots in, you also should not be doing your authentication on a Windows machine, because Windows-based authentication is inherently brain-dead.
If an attacker manages to get onto your network, they'll probably be able to sniff someone's password within about 5 minutes since Windows will use plain text unless you're in an all-NT/2000 environment. Once they have that, it will take about 2 minutes to get your password database. At this point, they can log off, crack passwords at their lesiure, and within about 4 hrs they'll have over 90% of your passwords using l0phtcrack (which, by the way, will happily sniff passwords off the network for you too).
You should use a solution that allows encrypted authentication, and that pretty much means Unix or a third-party authentication package for Windows. Throw AD away.
Have a nice day!
Yeah, but what are you doing about it? If you love this country, you and other geeks like you have to start speaking up about things that our government does that decrease our liberty. If you don't, it will only get worse.
It's inescapable. Graphic, violent acts are committed every day by real people, probably in a city very near you. Sex is enjoyed (and rightfully so!) by BILLIONS of people on this planet. Don't hide your kids from these things, EDUCATE THEM.
It seems to me that when your child reaches such an age where this sort of thing becomes a concern, rather than sheild your children from these real-world topics, teach them about them. Teach them that shooting people is not cool, but playing war games can be just plain fun. Teach them the consequences of having sex... ALL of the consequences. Teach them that people who shoot people go to jail (o.k. sometimes they do). These things are a reality of the world we live in. Don't let them get just a part of the reality... EDUCATE THEM!
I grew up playing violent games, and I have never committed a violent act. Never. The concept that television and video games teach your children to be violent is pure poppycock. The reality of it is that HUMANS ARE VIOLENT! If you don't want your children to be violent, you need to teach them not to be. Only by educating them, training them, instilling them with moral values will you prevent your children from being wretches (or perhaps by blind luck). If you are afraid to do this, or incapable, or if it is too inconvenient for you, DON'T HAVE KIDS. Do the world, and them, a favor, and forgo parenthood.
--
I'm brash
...my Netscape session under Linux? I went there to see if this thing was Internet capable. Strikes me that the "V-Chip" will likely be used to TRACK what you play, as well as sensor it. Far be it from Microsoft to try such tactics. They wouldn't design their program registration applets to upload information about what's on your hard drive either... Oh wait, they DID do that, didn't they. Of course, I might mind that less if downloading information from my HD actually made their products WORK. Needless to say I don't have a lot of faith that this company doesn't have alterior motives for putting a V-chip-like device in their machines, and I'm not really that enticed about the idea of a V-chip anyway. Concerned your kids might be playing games that you consider inappropriate? LOOK AT THEM. Have rules about when they are allowed to play games, and lock the machine up when they're not allowed. You don't need a V-chip. You just need to be a responsible parent. Heaven forbid. Can't be that? DON'T HAVE KIDS. Think I'm bitter? Sarchastic? Nah, not me. -- I'm brash