It is unlikely that deaths by car accidents will accelerate because cars want to kill us and have gotten big weapons or funding from rogue nations...
That brought to mind a vision of Kit from Night Rider going bad (or worse, depending on your view).:-)
How about this one: 500,000,000 - 700,000,000 people around the world have malaria, and over 2 million die each year just from this disease. "Terrorism" will never come close to that number. [And if it does, we can just toss in things like heart disease, tobacco and alcohol related deaths, etc. in there for good measure.]
Other than to politicos trying to get re-elected or news stations trying to drum up ratings, terrorism is NOT a big deal in the U.S.
Force authentication of the address and its owner before it can go out of the blocked ACLs.
This would be so trivial to bust thru and automate it isn't funny. What happens to zombie machines? They can authenticate fine, so slip right by this problem. Instead of sending thousands of messages as fast as possible, use thousands of zombies and send just and handful messages each. You'll never trip the thresholds for volume and the spam will be buried in among the legitimate e-mail sent by that user.
You can add the ubiquitous coverage in airports, marinas, hotels, etc. that have been in place for years and years.
Airports are closed environments and rarely will you find an overlapping network. This is why they actually work. I have no experience with marinas. I have lots with hotels, who go to great lenghts to install LOTS of overlapping access points to just plain drown out all the external signals from other hotels, truck stops, etc. They still have issues and wifi access at many hotels is a royal PITA.
There are hundreds if not thousands of network engineers that do this for a living and are good at their work.
Yeah, I know. I'm one of them, which is one reason I raise the question.
Of course consumer equipment set up by idiots and designed for indoor use won't provide a citywide network.
I never claimed it would. I claimed they would have to compete/deal with all the interference from those that already exist and that all that crappy home equipment will now have a big signal stomping on it and create even more headaches for those home users.
You might need to change what channel you use on your tivo or whatnot. But you'd have to do that anyway if a neighbor gets a new toy.
I did, to 11. I also went and changed one neighbor's connection to use channel 1. I ignored the other neighbor since his was on 6. I secured (WEP/WPA, MAC restrictions, DHCP & netmask tuned down to provide no more than 6 IP addresses, changed SSIDs, etc.) my neighbor's and mine (WiFi-G only as an extra precaution). This helped a great deal, but it took some effort and education on the part of my neighbor.
My situation also works because I live out in the middle of nowhere. I have a friend who lives in a hi-rise apartment in Chicago. He just bought a directional wifi antenna and was telling me that from his apartment he can see almost 400 unprotected wifi access spots. He could hop from one to another every day for a year and never have to pay for a connection again! He was curious as to why he was having so much interference
I have no doubt it will work, but I also think it will -- at best -- provide a minimum level of usability with a bit of a pain threshold. I also think there will be a plethora of opportunities for premium service providers.
WiFi B/G (the 2.4 GHz spectrum) has only 3 non-overlapping channels: 1,6,11. Linksys sets their equipment to default to 6. I'm not sure about other vendors.
Where I live, in a small town in Idaho, there are three wireless networks in my range. Mine and two neighbors. There are half-a-dozen downtown and maybe two dozen more around town. NONE of them, except for mine and one neighbor's are secured at all. 90% of them have the SSID of "linksys" and are sitting on channel 6, stomping on each other.
Connectivity from even two houses down is abysmal and frequently you will see your connection hop from one to another, and I don't mean seamlessly, either.
How is Google/Earthlink going to handle all the people who already have WLANs? Are they just going to pick a channel like 1 or 11 and say "sorry, we're here with the strongest signal"? I'd be strongly tempted to switch my personal stuff to the 5 GHz band (Wifi-A), but that wouldn't be cheap as I'd have to refit a Tivo, two X-Boxes and 3 PCs.
WiFi is a freaking mess and can be a source of no end of issues. I wonder just how Google is going to deal with all that.
...is "connected". For the people whom I talk to the most -- family and some cyber-aware friends -- strong encryption on top of VoIP is the way I will go. Don't leave the Internet for the traditional POTS world and the CALEA doesn't apply.
This will supposedly address.doc,.xls and.ppt. Though the big issue with.xls wasn't the format, it was converting macros, etc. so I'm not sure how this helps in that regard. I do know Suse is working on a macro-translation utility.
The Office division of Microsoft has long been one of their major profit centers. MS Office is also a bigger monopoly than Windows, having greater penetration in the market percentagewise. These facts stem from the ability to lock-in customers by holding their data hostage to a closed format.
This plug-in is a door to the world of non-MS Office products -- a way out, if you will. Yes, other office-type products exist, but none of them have gained serious traction because of the perceived lack of totally compatibility with MS.doc and.xls. This one will solve the.doc issue and, if widely distributed, have two effects:
1. It will increase the market share of non-MS Office products at the expense of MS Office;
2. It will cause Microsoft to lower the price of MS Office to compete, thus lowering their profits on what is widely rumored to be their LARGEST profit center, Office.
But will Google stay a non-competitor? Didn't we hear rumors of a Google OS earlier in the year and doesn't it make sense that eventually Google might take Microsoft on head on? Google can certainly handle any competition it has on the Internet right now, but if their idea of a global data sharing network is to be believed (thought I doubt it would ever become sentient), it would gain a big assist if there were Google OS-powered computers world wide. So perhaps MS is engaging Google pre-emptively, to forestall the day they do become a competitor directly.
Pre-emptive, by half-ass "me too" projects every time it sees Google announce something? They're jumping into several non-core markets because there is no more room to grow "up" in the OS/Productivity market. It is mature and will grow at a steady pace. Microsoft yearns for the hyper-growth days of old. To do that, they need to move into different markets.
They give a strong feel of having a business plan of "If Google is doing it, we need to be in that space" as opposed to making sound business decisions and FOCUSING on something.
What "...preserves the honor of the Bujinkan members, it indicates you are part of a larger whole--one whose members come together with warrior hearts to better themselves through training and friendship. It evinces the glory of warrior virtue, and embodies both loyalty and brotherly love." ?
Why, the required membership card, of course! Don't leave dojo without it!
1) Massive debt -- Yes, the President sends a "suggested" budget and he lobbies & pressures for funding. He does bear some responsibility for that mess. Since each budget is actually a law that must be signed by the President before becoming effective, he bears even more. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the spineless mob that is Congress.
2) --
3a) The Constitution prohibits *unreasonable* searches. The President is contending that these searches are resonable, under these circumstances. Thus, they have not been proven Unconstitutional until ruled on by the SCOTUS. He claims his Executive Order made them "legal", which is being argued by Congress but not too loudly. I seriously hope the SCOTUS has a spine on this one and shuts it down.
3b) I so wish to God that I could afford a banner of eInk or something. Show the nice, conformist banner and get permission to hang it. Then, when all the cameras are on it and the Pres passes by -- change the message.:-)
4) Bush is partly responsible, as he is the one actually ordering it. Congress is the only one with the authority to shut it down and again they have shown their mettle...
5) --
A list? Make a website, sell some Google Ads and get rich. It could become a serious source of debate if you do it right. To one group the fact that Bush is breathing will be "proof" enough, whereas to the other side you'll never be able to "prove" anything. The biggest group will simply not want to get involved.
I think a more interesting list would be of all the Presidental staffers and their resumes. IIRC, half those people worked for Bush, Sr., Reagan, Ford and Nixon. In Democratic administrations you'll find the same people from Clinton, Carter and Johnson still hanging around. I wouldn't be surprised to find people who worked in the Kennedy administration still in hiding up there in D.C.
The President is just a front man, designed to draw attention (and fire). The people who really run the country haven't changed in over a generation, they just take turns.
Regardless, President Bush's activities are illegal, immoral, and unethical.
I'll grant you the last two but Impeachment requires "illegal", not just immoral and unethical.
Bush is not responsible for massive debt, as all spending/debt rests at the feet of Congress. (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sections 7 & 9)
What "illegal" war? Congress granted authority for the current incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which makes it legal in U.S. law. Congress makes the laws here, not the U.N.
The "warrantless wiretaps" and "raping civil liberties" are under investigation. If it can be proven, then you might have a case.
Don't whine to me about Guantanamo. The U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 8), in enumerating the powers of the Legislature, states "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" The final responsibility for that atrocity also lays at the feet of Congress.
Good luck proving "profiteering", much less convincing anyone in power it is an impeachable offense.
G.W. may be a dick, but he is a dick with advisors that know the limits of the law and how the game is played.
Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?
Lying about it under oath was the impeachable offence. Clinton could have simply said "None of your business. Next question." or, just to show his balls, "Yep, I did her several times. Hell, I even told her to bring some friends!" and it wouldn't have been criminal.
Wow, that's quite a security expert there! I wonder how much it would cost to hire Whitedust Security to hang out on IRC and make up conspiracy theories about people attacking my network?
I'm sure if you sent them an e-mail the could provide you with a quote. If not, send me one and I'd be happy to make up conspiracy theories for a small stipend.:-)
In another lost in translation marketing descision an Chinese firm decides to put "Yellow and River" together in their name. I'd call that a piss poor decision?
No, it is simply your total lack of education. Google on "Yellow River China" and you'll find it is one of the most important rivers in the world and along with the Tigris/Euphrates and Nile is where one of the earliest civilizations developed, sometime around 4000 B.C.
It is named after the color of the silt in the water, just like the Red River which is also in China.
I'm sorry, but a Judge should not be playing games in a judgement. If I were the plantiff or prosecutor, I'd be pissed the he might not be taking the case seriously.
The plaintiff's premise for suing was "Dan Brown wrote about the same stuff we wrote about" followed by their lawyer's logic of "Dan Brown is rich" and "this pays better than the lottery". They deserve not to be taken seriously.
Isn't the point of a per-machine firewall to prevent an infected system from pwn'ing your entire LAN?
It is, but the reality is most organizations let users do things like share out folders from their workstation so a personal firewall really doesn't do that much good. You have to open up all the stuff that the virii use for everyday use.
I've run in to VERY few organizations that have the time, money and manpower to do it right. Like the rest of the world, most of them get to the point were something just works and move on to fight other fires.
As for Windows NT and 98... NT server? They are no longer supported, whether or not a firewall is running on the workstations should be less of a concern then running NT in the enviroment.
My point exactly. Many of the companies have bigger problems than worrying about personal firewalls. Ditto for Win98.
Why would running (at least 2k) servers matter with group policy? You can easiliy install the managing ADM files for managing windows firewall etc, even though they don't exist in the default Windows 2k installation.
Easily? Not really. God help you if you manage the GPO from an XP SP2 workstation, then try to get to it from a Win2K server.
"This means that if you want to use Windows 2000 and update XP systems with it, you must edit the GPO on a Windows XP system. The question does come up, what if I make a GPO on an XP machine and a GPO on a 2000 machine... how will it affect a container with mixed systems? That means an OU with mixed XP and 2000 clients, how would that work? Well, if you make the GPO on XP and apply it, the 2000 clients will ignore any of the XP-specific settings." -- http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Windows-XP- Group-Policy-Windows-2000-Domain-Part1.html
Yes, it seems like it is trivial -- until you actually do it and then spend the next half-hour fixing it.
Mixed environments like this are a pain and there is more work involved than "just click here".
As for Novell, I've never had to handle it myself and just go by what customers tell me. They all love NDS (and its successor) but all say the same thing "it never works 100% with a mixed Windows environment" and there is always something you have to double-check. It is, however, better than the Windows tools for managing GPO, according to everyone I've talked to.
One would expect that Entreprise customers could set this anyway they want via Group Policy.
You'd be surprised at the number of companies that are still running Win2K domain servers, Novell or NT Domains for their core. I've run into several, including quite a few who still have Win98 boxes on the network as single-purpose terminals.
Workstations migrate in to an environment much quicker than servers do, so the companies see WinXP much faster than they can upgrade to Win2003.
The majority of companies that I have talked to about Windows Firewall have it disabled totally. They have real firewalls at the gateways and per-machine firewalls can be a totaly nightmare in a Windows environment.
A driver's license/state ID is -NOT- mandatory. But try to do ANY paperwork without one and you'll see how non-mandatory it really is.
If you don't have a passport, get one before they stick RFID chips in them and use that. It doesn't contain your SSN or an address unless you pencil one in, is a legal photo-ID and a hell of a lot harder to get info from. They are also valid for 10 years. It usually confuses the hell out of places like smaller hotels, banks, etc. but they DO accept it.
I can't be bothered to google the related articles at the moment, but I do remember reading about this exact thing in China several months ago.
The gist was that CDs in China are so pirated, recorded music is considered nothing more than advertising and a cost of doing business for both the artists and studios. With the street price on a CD somewhere around $1, the money is made on live performances -- what can NOT be truely duplicated -- and endorsements.
The article was exploring the directions that the U.S. & European music markets will have to explore once their iron grip on copyrights no longer means anything.
It looks like this is the path that will be taken. As if Ruth (aka not-the-virgin-Madonna) needs any more money as is.
Just because someone hasn't gone out of their way to solve your problem for you doesn't make them an asshole.
No, but calling someone names or telling them to "you're not reading the docs" does. If you can't help, what gives you the right to berate, belittle and bitch? How about just NOT POSTING A REPLY?
The concept is a twist on "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." In the context of support -- paid or free -- if you can't help, then don't post. For the record, saying "RTFM" isn't helping.
The guy already has his answer on what he can do next from his own question, he can identify which bits of the documentation he doesn't understand, research the area on Google and experiment until he does understand it, yes that is probably going to take a while but why should anyone expect other people to give up their time for your problem if you aren't willing to give up your own time for the problem ?
Right, now considering he does this, unless he pops back into said forum and answers his own question -- not gonna happen -- his information isn't documented anywhere. Thus, Google doesn't see it and can't be seen by doing online research. Sort of a Catch 22. The only things that are going to turn up in the research are the "RTFM" answers. Lots of help there.
If someone actually gives a HELPFUL answer it helps not just the person asking the question, but anyone who takes the time to research it themselves.
I've lost count of the number of useless "RTFM" and "did you Google on that" answers I've bumped into when researching an issue myself. One of the reasons that it takes so much effort to track something down by "researching" it yourself is wading thru all the self-righteous BS answers before finding the useful bit.
Sorry, wrong. Not paying for support may justify the silence, as no one may know the answer to his issue. However it does NOT justify the original answer by any stretch of imagination.
The silence in response to the "I read it but didn't understand it" post underscores the fact that the original responder DIDN'T HAVE ANY CLUE AND SHOULD HAVE KEPT THEIR MOUTH SHUT.
I fail to see how anyone can think "you're not paying me, so I can be an asshole" is a valid train of thought.
I see your point. I do plan on running servers overseas, but have to start somewhere. Since I live in the US and am most familiar with their laws, that's where I'm starting.
I had forgotten about the anonymous stored value cards, though I do use them myself. Accepting credit cards isn't that big of deal, it just requires up-front $$. Once I validate my model and have everything up and running with the system, I'll probably add plastic to the list.
I have investigated eGold and Pecunix, neither of which are truely anonymous. There needs to be something equivalent to the fabled Numbered Swiss Account.
As far as Western Union goes -- never in a million years. Their entire history is intertwined with government communications and wiretaps, from the 1800s on. Google for "Project Shamrock" and Western Union to get an idea of some of the more recent (1950s-1975) public activity.
I need to look at PayPal closer, to see how hard it is to set up a quickie disposable account to make a one-time payment.
Feel free to send an e-mail to "sysadmin@occulus.net" once you see it move from a parked domain over to something live and remind me of this conversation. I'd be happy to get some feedback early on.
Slashdot Mirror
Numbers vary by source, but here are the very interesting links:
http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/faq.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_cost.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/impact/index.htm
I was off by a little. The CDC claims 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 per year, with 1 million+ deaths.
It is an astounding number.
Charles
It is unlikely that deaths by car accidents will accelerate because cars want to kill us and have gotten big weapons or funding from rogue nations...
:-)
That brought to mind a vision of Kit from Night Rider going bad (or worse, depending on your view).
How about this one: 500,000,000 - 700,000,000 people around the world have malaria, and over 2 million die each year just from this disease. "Terrorism" will never come close to that number. [And if it does, we can just toss in things like heart disease, tobacco and alcohol related deaths, etc. in there for good measure.]
Other than to politicos trying to get re-elected or news stations trying to drum up ratings, terrorism is NOT a big deal in the U.S.
Force authentication of the address and its owner before it can go out of the blocked ACLs.
This would be so trivial to bust thru and automate it isn't funny. What happens to zombie machines? They can authenticate fine, so slip right by this problem. Instead of sending thousands of messages as fast as possible, use thousands of zombies and send just and handful messages each. You'll never trip the thresholds for volume and the spam will be buried in among the legitimate e-mail sent by that user.
Authentication is not a solution.
You can add the ubiquitous coverage in airports, marinas, hotels, etc. that have been in place for years and years.
Airports are closed environments and rarely will you find an overlapping network. This is why they actually work. I have no experience with marinas. I have lots with hotels, who go to great lenghts to install LOTS of overlapping access points to just plain drown out all the external signals from other hotels, truck stops, etc. They still have issues and wifi access at many hotels is a royal PITA.
There are hundreds if not thousands of network engineers that do this for a living and are good at their work.
Yeah, I know. I'm one of them, which is one reason I raise the question.
Of course consumer equipment set up by idiots and designed for indoor use won't provide a citywide network.
I never claimed it would. I claimed they would have to compete/deal with all the interference from those that already exist and that all that crappy home equipment will now have a big signal stomping on it and create even more headaches for those home users.
You might need to change what channel you use on your tivo or whatnot. But you'd have to do that anyway if a neighbor gets a new toy.
I did, to 11. I also went and changed one neighbor's connection to use channel 1. I ignored the other neighbor since his was on 6. I secured (WEP/WPA, MAC restrictions, DHCP & netmask tuned down to provide no more than 6 IP addresses, changed SSIDs, etc.) my neighbor's and mine (WiFi-G only as an extra precaution). This helped a great deal, but it took some effort and education on the part of my neighbor.
My situation also works because I live out in the middle of nowhere. I have a friend who lives in a hi-rise apartment in Chicago. He just bought a directional wifi antenna and was telling me that from his apartment he can see almost 400 unprotected wifi access spots. He could hop from one to another every day for a year and never have to pay for a connection again! He was curious as to why he was having so much interference
I have no doubt it will work, but I also think it will -- at best -- provide a minimum level of usability with a bit of a pain threshold. I also think there will be a plethora of opportunities for premium service providers.
-Charles
WiFi B/G (the 2.4 GHz spectrum) has only 3 non-overlapping channels: 1,6,11. Linksys sets their equipment to default to 6. I'm not sure about other vendors.
Where I live, in a small town in Idaho, there are three wireless networks in my range. Mine and two neighbors. There are half-a-dozen downtown and maybe two dozen more around town. NONE of them, except for mine and one neighbor's are secured at all. 90% of them have the SSID of "linksys" and are sitting on channel 6, stomping on each other.
Connectivity from even two houses down is abysmal and frequently you will see your connection hop from one to another, and I don't mean seamlessly, either.
How is Google/Earthlink going to handle all the people who already have WLANs? Are they just going to pick a channel like 1 or 11 and say "sorry, we're here with the strongest signal"? I'd be strongly tempted to switch my personal stuff to the 5 GHz band (Wifi-A), but that wouldn't be cheap as I'd have to refit a Tivo, two X-Boxes and 3 PCs.
WiFi is a freaking mess and can be a source of no end of issues. I wonder just how Google is going to deal with all that.
Thank you (again), Phil.
Well, I just read the EULA and I want to retract that statement. Thanks for nothing, Phil. Nothing like selling out, is there? Ka-ching!
-Charles
...is "connected". For the people whom I talk to the most -- family and some cyber-aware friends -- strong encryption on top of VoIP is the way I will go. Don't leave the Internet for the traditional POTS world and the CALEA doesn't apply.
http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
Thank you (again), Phil.
-Charles
Okay, I know I read that wrong...
.doc, .xls and .ppt. Though the big issue with .xls wasn't the format, it was converting macros, etc. so I'm not sure how this helps in that regard. I do know Suse is working on a macro-translation utility.
This will supposedly address
Microsoft wins yet again.
.doc and .xls. This one will solve the .doc issue and, if widely distributed, have two effects:
No, this is not correct.
The Office division of Microsoft has long been one of their major profit centers. MS Office is also a bigger monopoly than Windows, having greater penetration in the market percentagewise. These facts stem from the ability to lock-in customers by holding their data hostage to a closed format.
This plug-in is a door to the world of non-MS Office products -- a way out, if you will. Yes, other office-type products exist, but none of them have gained serious traction because of the perceived lack of totally compatibility with MS
1. It will increase the market share of non-MS Office products at the expense of MS Office;
2. It will cause Microsoft to lower the price of MS Office to compete, thus lowering their profits on what is widely rumored to be their LARGEST profit center, Office.
-Charles
But will Google stay a non-competitor? Didn't we hear rumors of a Google OS earlier in the year and doesn't it make sense that eventually Google might take Microsoft on head on? Google can certainly handle any competition it has on the Internet right now, but if their idea of a global data sharing network is to be believed (thought I doubt it would ever become sentient), it would gain a big assist if there were Google OS-powered computers world wide. So perhaps MS is engaging Google pre-emptively, to forestall the day they do become a competitor directly.
Pre-emptive, by half-ass "me too" projects every time it sees Google announce something? They're jumping into several non-core markets because there is no more room to grow "up" in the OS/Productivity market. It is mature and will grow at a steady pace. Microsoft yearns for the hyper-growth days of old. To do that, they need to move into different markets.
They give a strong feel of having a business plan of "If Google is doing it, we need to be in that space" as opposed to making sound business decisions and FOCUSING on something.
What "...preserves the honor of the Bujinkan members, it indicates you are part of a larger whole--one whose members come together with warrior hearts to better themselves through training and friendship. It evinces the glory of warrior virtue, and embodies both loyalty and brotherly love." ?
Why, the required membership card, of course! Don't leave dojo without it!
http://www.bujinkan.com/guidelines.htm (#6)
-Charles
1) Massive debt -- Yes, the President sends a "suggested" budget and he lobbies & pressures for funding. He does bear some responsibility for that mess. Since each budget is actually a law that must be signed by the President before becoming effective, he bears even more. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the spineless mob that is Congress.
:-)
2) --
3a) The Constitution prohibits *unreasonable* searches. The President is contending that these searches are resonable, under these circumstances. Thus, they have not been proven Unconstitutional until ruled on by the SCOTUS. He claims his Executive Order made them "legal", which is being argued by Congress but not too loudly. I seriously hope the SCOTUS has a spine on this one and shuts it down.
3b) I so wish to God that I could afford a banner of eInk or something. Show the nice, conformist banner and get permission to hang it. Then, when all the cameras are on it and the Pres passes by -- change the message.
4) Bush is partly responsible, as he is the one actually ordering it. Congress is the only one with the authority to shut it down and again they have shown their mettle...
5) --
A list? Make a website, sell some Google Ads and get rich. It could become a serious source of debate if you do it right. To one group the fact that Bush is breathing will be "proof" enough, whereas to the other side you'll never be able to "prove" anything. The biggest group will simply not want to get involved.
I think a more interesting list would be of all the Presidental staffers and their resumes. IIRC, half those people worked for Bush, Sr., Reagan, Ford and Nixon. In Democratic administrations you'll find the same people from Clinton, Carter and Johnson still hanging around. I wouldn't be surprised to find people who worked in the Kennedy administration still in hiding up there in D.C.
The President is just a front man, designed to draw attention (and fire). The people who really run the country haven't changed in over a generation, they just take turns.
-Charles
Regardless, President Bush's activities are illegal, immoral, and unethical.
I'll grant you the last two but Impeachment requires "illegal", not just immoral and unethical.
Bush is not responsible for massive debt, as all spending/debt rests at the feet of Congress. (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sections 7 & 9)
What "illegal" war? Congress granted authority for the current incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which makes it legal in U.S. law. Congress makes the laws here, not the U.N.
The "warrantless wiretaps" and "raping civil liberties" are under investigation. If it can be proven, then you might have a case.
Don't whine to me about Guantanamo. The U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 8), in enumerating the powers of the Legislature, states "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" The final responsibility for that atrocity also lays at the feet of Congress.
Good luck proving "profiteering", much less convincing anyone in power it is an impeachable offense.
G.W. may be a dick, but he is a dick with advisors that know the limits of the law and how the game is played.
-Charles
Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?
Lying about it under oath was the impeachable offence. Clinton could have simply said "None of your business. Next question." or, just to show his balls, "Yep, I did her several times. Hell, I even told her to bring some friends!" and it wouldn't have been criminal.
Wow, that's quite a security expert there! I wonder how much it would cost to hire Whitedust Security to hang out on IRC and make up conspiracy theories about people attacking my network?
:-)
I'm sure if you sent them an e-mail the could provide you with a quote. If not, send me one and I'd be happy to make up conspiracy theories for a small stipend.
In another lost in translation marketing descision an Chinese firm decides to put "Yellow and River" together in their name. I'd call that a piss poor decision?
No, it is simply your total lack of education. Google on "Yellow River China" and you'll find it is one of the most important rivers in the world and along with the Tigris/Euphrates and Nile is where one of the earliest civilizations developed, sometime around 4000 B.C.
It is named after the color of the silt in the water, just like the Red River which is also in China.
I'm sorry, but a Judge should not be playing games in a judgement. If I were the plantiff or prosecutor, I'd be pissed the he might not be taking the case seriously.
The plaintiff's premise for suing was "Dan Brown wrote about the same stuff we wrote about" followed by their lawyer's logic of "Dan Brown is rich" and "this pays better than the lottery". They deserve not to be taken seriously.
Isn't the point of a per-machine firewall to prevent an infected system from pwn'ing your entire LAN?
It is, but the reality is most organizations let users do things like share out folders from their workstation so a personal firewall really doesn't do that much good. You have to open up all the stuff that the virii use for everyday use.
I've run in to VERY few organizations that have the time, money and manpower to do it right. Like the rest of the world, most of them get to the point were something just works and move on to fight other fires.
As for Windows NT and 98... NT server? They are no longer supported, whether or not a firewall is running on the workstations should be less of a concern then running NT in the enviroment.
- Group-Policy-Windows-2000-Domain-Part1.html
My point exactly. Many of the companies have bigger problems than worrying about personal firewalls. Ditto for Win98.
Why would running (at least 2k) servers matter with group policy? You can easiliy install the managing ADM files for managing windows firewall etc, even though they don't exist in the default Windows 2k installation.
Easily? Not really. God help you if you manage the GPO from an XP SP2 workstation, then try to get to it from a Win2K server.
"This means that if you want to use Windows 2000 and update XP systems with it, you must edit the GPO on a Windows XP system. The question does come up, what if I make a GPO on an XP machine and a GPO on a 2000 machine... how will it affect a container with mixed systems? That means an OU with mixed XP and 2000 clients, how would that work? Well, if you make the GPO on XP and apply it, the 2000 clients will ignore any of the XP-specific settings." -- http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Windows-XP
Yes, it seems like it is trivial -- until you actually do it and then spend the next half-hour fixing it.
Mixed environments like this are a pain and there is more work involved than "just click here".
As for Novell, I've never had to handle it myself and just go by what customers tell me. They all love NDS (and its successor) but all say the same thing "it never works 100% with a mixed Windows environment" and there is always something you have to double-check. It is, however, better than the Windows tools for managing GPO, according to everyone I've talked to.
One would expect that Entreprise customers could set this anyway they want via Group Policy.
You'd be surprised at the number of companies that are still running Win2K domain servers, Novell or NT Domains for their core. I've run into several, including quite a few who still have Win98 boxes on the network as single-purpose terminals.
Workstations migrate in to an environment much quicker than servers do, so the companies see WinXP much faster than they can upgrade to Win2003.
The majority of companies that I have talked to about Windows Firewall have it disabled totally. They have real firewalls at the gateways and per-machine firewalls can be a totaly nightmare in a Windows environment.
-Charles
A driver's license/state ID is -NOT- mandatory. But try to do ANY paperwork without one and you'll see how non-mandatory it really is.
If you don't have a passport, get one before they stick RFID chips in them and use that. It doesn't contain your SSN or an address unless you pencil one in, is a legal photo-ID and a hell of a lot harder to get info from. They are also valid for 10 years. It usually confuses the hell out of places like smaller hotels, banks, etc. but they DO accept it.
-Charles
I can't be bothered to google the related articles at the moment, but I do remember reading about this exact thing in China several months ago.
The gist was that CDs in China are so pirated, recorded music is considered nothing more than advertising and a cost of doing business for both the artists and studios. With the street price on a CD somewhere around $1, the money is made on live performances -- what can NOT be truely duplicated -- and endorsements.
The article was exploring the directions that the U.S. & European music markets will have to explore once their iron grip on copyrights no longer means anything.
It looks like this is the path that will be taken. As if Ruth (aka not-the-virgin-Madonna) needs any more money as is.
Just because someone hasn't gone out of their way to solve your problem for you doesn't make them an asshole.
No, but calling someone names or telling them to "you're not reading the docs" does. If you can't help, what gives you the right to berate, belittle and bitch? How about just NOT POSTING A REPLY?
The concept is a twist on "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." In the context of support -- paid or free -- if you can't help, then don't post. For the record, saying "RTFM" isn't helping.
The guy already has his answer on what he can do next from his own question, he can identify which bits of the documentation he doesn't understand, research the area on Google and experiment until he does understand it, yes that is probably going to take a while but why should anyone expect other people to give up their time for your problem if you aren't willing to give up your own time for the problem ?
Right, now considering he does this, unless he pops back into said forum and answers his own question -- not gonna happen -- his information isn't documented anywhere. Thus, Google doesn't see it and can't be seen by doing online research. Sort of a Catch 22. The only things that are going to turn up in the research are the "RTFM" answers. Lots of help there.
If someone actually gives a HELPFUL answer it helps not just the person asking the question, but anyone who takes the time to research it themselves.
I've lost count of the number of useless "RTFM" and "did you Google on that" answers I've bumped into when researching an issue myself. One of the reasons that it takes so much effort to track something down by "researching" it yourself is wading thru all the self-righteous BS answers before finding the useful bit.
Sorry, wrong. Not paying for support may justify the silence, as no one may know the answer to his issue. However it does NOT justify the original answer by any stretch of imagination.
The silence in response to the "I read it but didn't understand it" post underscores the fact that the original responder DIDN'T HAVE ANY CLUE AND SHOULD HAVE KEPT THEIR MOUTH SHUT.
I fail to see how anyone can think "you're not paying me, so I can be an asshole" is a valid train of thought.
I see your point. I do plan on running servers overseas, but have to start somewhere. Since I live in the US and am most familiar with their laws, that's where I'm starting.
I had forgotten about the anonymous stored value cards, though I do use them myself. Accepting credit cards isn't that big of deal, it just requires up-front $$. Once I validate my model and have everything up and running with the system, I'll probably add plastic to the list.
I have investigated eGold and Pecunix, neither of which are truely anonymous. There needs to be something equivalent to the fabled Numbered Swiss Account.
As far as Western Union goes -- never in a million years. Their entire history is intertwined with government communications and wiretaps, from the 1800s on. Google for "Project Shamrock" and Western Union to get an idea of some of the more recent (1950s-1975) public activity.
I need to look at PayPal closer, to see how hard it is to set up a quickie disposable account to make a one-time payment.
Feel free to send an e-mail to "sysadmin@occulus.net" once you see it move from a parked domain over to something live and remind me of this conversation. I'd be happy to get some feedback early on.