Not true. To take the U.S again there are many millions of people that barely get enough to eat. This is why there are programs in schools to feed children for free. They're hungry. Their families live very close to the edge of disaster and work to survive.
Now I don't like to spoil a wonderful story, but obviously you haven't lived in a 3rd world country. Nobody in the U.S. is living in fear of starvation. (well, perhaps some illegal immigrants, but obviously there are special factors at work there) Even if you have no income whatsoever, there's lots of charity, lots of land on which to grow crops, lots of animals, birds, and suchlike to eat, and lots of supermarkets and restaurants to steal from. Nobody in the U.S. is gonna starve! Just because the American poor do not live a life of ease or comfort, does not mean they cannot survive! Now, I'm not saying that we should just abandon the poor to their own devices, but please don't paint a picture of them as being "on the edge of disaster". It's just not true.
Sorry, you don't have any rights to that "work". Remember, we are talking about a world in which there is no such thing as intellectual property. As soon as you create something, it immediately passes into public domain. There is no licensing -- anybody can do anything with it, including re-releasing under their own name. Well, there's always the fact that you can only freely copy something you have. If the group of theatres that created this movie refuse to sell it or give copies to anyone until it is no longer making them profits, well, that pokes a hole in the whole "steal their work" business model for the other theatres, eh? Of course, those other theatres can sneak in a camcorder and make a copy that way, but I don't think anyone's gonna be too impressed with that. In other words, no IP means that you can do whatever you want with a copy you have, but doesn't mean they have to let you copy what they have.
You are not only a conduit. Christianity teaches that God embodied you with free will. Take responsibility for your own actions and do not presume to attribute them to God.
As for fear of Murderous Persection, Christians have virtually nothing to fear, especially compared to the abortionists you allege will swarm over your kids if you divulge your identity. Perhaps you should take a look at what they have to face.
Publicly rejecting God is not a supression of religion. If I say "I am an atheist", that does not affect your ability to worship God as you choose. On the other hand, killing someone for publicly rejecting God is murder, and a violation of the Ten Commandments. (Read that Old Testament yourself.) Judge not lest you be judged.
This has to be either a joke that went a little too far, or else one of the sickest displays of doublethink I have ever seen in my life. For one thing, do you really believe he's bragging about practicing cannibalism? It seems to me he's making a joke about the sheer absurdity of confusing a nectarine with a human head.
As for the "amorality" of non-believers in the Christian God, that is patently absurd. It is possible to develop a morality without having it handed to you from on high, although in many of your examples (Islam, for example) it IS handed down in the form of their holy books, just as it is with you. Your choices are simply absurd - Buddhists and Hindus are known as some of the most peace-loving people in the world; Muslims respected Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book' and treated them as equals; they had an enlightened society while the Christian world was in the dark ages. Communism is not a religion, though I believe you refer to the common tactic in Socialism of encouraging atheism. Canadians? That doesn't even dignify a rebuttal!
Your love for your fellow man is obvious. ("Liberals usually have subnormal mentalities.", "howling insanity and sick hate") The only one displaying hate here is you. Way to walk in the path of Jesus; you've entirely missed his message. Religion is not a fight.
"Stalin killed thirty or forty million people. Stalin was an atheist. You figure it out."
Correlation does not imply causation, and you haven't even shown correlation here. You give one example of a notorious murderer who was an atheist and expect to judge all non-Christians by his actions? (Judge not lest you be judged, of course, but its pretty obvious that you're ignoring THAT one totally too.) This is no less absurd than saying:
Hitler ordered the slaughter of approximately 5,709,329 people. Hitler had brown hair. You figure it out.
The human race may be in danger, but if it is, it's from McCarthyist religiously intolerant bigots like you, not from decent, honorable people who occasionally make somewhat tasteless jokes.
I'm going to try to make an analogy here without having too great an understanding of the issue myself, so forgive me if I'm astoundingly stupid here.
Consider the case of a two dimensional universe. Imagine it as a piece of graph paper, with parallel lines on both axes. At the edges in an open universe, the paper would stretch out, and the formerly parallel lines would splay out like a fan. The angle between them would increase. In a closed universe, the paper would scrunch together at the edge, and the angle between the parallel lines would decrease - they would eventually meet. In a flat universe, the universe would remain a perfectly undistorted plane, and the lines would stay parallel forever.
The problem is that to understand the two dimensional universe cause we had to make use of three dimensions; hence understanding the three dimensional case will make use of four. (This is where I start guessing I'm afraid; feel free to correct me) We can imagine the effects despite not being able to imagine four dimensions. Imagine the four square wooden legs of a table. (Leave the tabletop off) Now extend them infinitely up and down. In an open universe, after following them for a very long time distortion would start to be evident - after a VERY long time the legs would become huge and splayed out upwards, curved like the tops of cathedral columns. All three dimensions are stretching, not just the two as before, so the legs would seem to get bigger and bigger and more and more splayed outward. By contrast, in a closed three dimensional universe, the legs would start to bend closer and closer together and shrink imperceptably until after a very long time they shrank to a point. In a flat universe, of course, none of this silliness occurs and the legs stay normal legs forever.
Of course I could be - and probably am - totally on crack. If nothing else, however, I've at least given you an interesting visual. =)
Reading the short blurb in the NYT article about inflation intrigued me greatly because it seemed to imply that we now consider the universe to have a defined state before the Big Bang. The implications of this are quite interesting - if one considers the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe in an absolute sense, with nothing at all before it to explain, one can in a sense simply ignore what brought the Big Bang into being - the very question seems to be undefined. By describing the Big Bang as being initiated by stretching of space caused by interactions of (I assume because of the mention of grand unified theories) super strings, this article caused me to wonder about what that pre-universe world was like, and what its origin was. Can these super strings have always existed, hanging in space, unexplained and unexplainable? This is also sort of related to the notion of space as a bounded entity - in a flat universe, wouldn't that imply that you could leave space? (albeit possibly only if you're massless) Can anyone with a much better knowledge of advanced theoretical physics shed some light on these issues for me, or at least provide further food for thought?
>Hmm, there must be something wrong with me then since I found his piece rather humorous, although a bit crude.
I agree - I saw the humour in it too. Something is funny if it is illogical or absurd or leaves the brain confused in some way. I wrote far more violent stories than this in my elementary school years which I thought were absolutely hilarious, as did most of my peers. The teachers didn't think so mostly because they were taking things too seriously, looking at the violence as if it was real and not just as an absurd fantasy. Ah - analysis takes all the beauty out of things, but you get my point - stuff like this is almost inherently funny because its so absurd.
Not that anyone will real this comment since the story's off the front page =)
I don't know that that's really true, especially not in these days of centralized law enforcement. Any differentiation of treatment that's based on personality is neccessarily limited to those people you deal with PERSONALLY. People with whom you don't deal personally can be judged by standards that make sense for the context in which you're dealing with them - if in business, by professional reputation; if as a criminal, by criminal record. If there are no records to deal with, start by assuming the best and change that assumption as new information comes in. Seems pretty simple to me.
"Your post amuses me. I know that there is a need for the paranoid, the consiracy-theorists, because without you the sane would fall completely into complacency. You keep us aware that we don't live in a perfect world. You keep us aware that people can make mistakes."
Do you think you must be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to believe in protecting your rights? Can only the sane believe in justice, freedom, and presumption of innocence? You shrug off the unjust imprisonment of this child as a "mistake" - how would you feel if this was done to you? The fact of the matter here is that there was not probable cause to arrest this child; it was done out of simple political expediency. (in other words, the principal wanted to do something proactive in the face of the parents' and teacher's concerns) Expediency is not an acceptable reason to violate someone's rights - and it must be remembered that minors DO have almost all of the rights that adults enjoy - and neither is unsubstantiated fear. Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little short-term security deserve neither security nor freedom, as Ben Franklin approximately said.
We base the operation of our system of justice on the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. We provide as many ways out as we can for the accused, because it is better for 10 criminals to go free than for 1 innocent to be punished. We have no need to 'close down all the jails' because we already take care of the problem in other ways - ways you may find just as absurd, judging from your post. We are not - corruption excepted - so utilitarian in these respects as you may think.
You say it is the responsibility of school administrators to do what they can to protect the children under their care. This is certainly true, but the key word is CAN. Police cannot randomly search anyone who is on the streets after 6 PM, even though this might reduce crime, because they must respect peoples' rights. It is no more acceptable to do this based upon statistical likelihood of commiting a crime, or simply because people 'look dangerous' - say, by searching all young black males on the streets after 6 PM. By the same token, though this student may have had a heightened statistical likelihood of commiting a crime by some (questionable) measures, and may have looked dangerous to some of his peers, we cannot arrest him for doing nothing more than exercising his first amendment rights. No matter how much doing this every time might reduce the (already miniscule) amount of violence in schools, we cannot do it, because the civil rights of the individual come first.
At this point, you may object "But I said not to treat him like a criminal!" Yet in the very next sentence you expressed agreement that he should have been removed from society - is that not treating him like a criminal? If we rename the County Jail to the County Happy Camp does it change the reality of the experience for those sent there? A rose by any other name is just as sweet.
What, then, would have been a more appropiate reaction? The teacher could've asked him why he chose to use those names in the story. If the teacher really thought that there was something worthy of concern, and there was a pattern of behavior, not just this one incident, he could have been refered to a counselor. I doubt this incident would've gotten past the inquiry-from-teacher stage.
As far as your claim that wanting to kill someone who's picking on you is mere psychosis, I would say that its a perfectly natural reaction to inescapable problems to want to simply fight your way out of them. It sounds like you have fallen victim to this 'psychosis' too, since you mention beating up all but two of the people who picked on you during your childhood. All you are saying is that you are better at fighting than him - or else have less self control than him. I don't beat up people, much less kill them, even if they pick on me, because it would be wrong and I have no right to do it. But just because I haven't done it doesn't mean I'm not subject to the same psychosis that he - and you - have fallen victim to. Its part of human psychology; its silly to think otherwise.
Well, not all that avant-garde but you gotta take what you can get =) Generally I like music that gets my blood flowing, especially which gets me excited or happy. That seems to be a fairly common thread with all of my friends who code. (I don't know if that's shared by the general slashdot population as I haven't read others' answers yet in an attempt to be unbiased) Here's my selections: Nine Inch Nails, Moby, Primus, Fatboy Slim, Funker Vogt, Pop Will Eat Itself, Prodigy, Tricky, Spring Heel Jack, Ministry, Atari Teenage Riot, Rage Against the Machine, KMFDM, Pills, Juno Reactor, Keoki, Dr. Bombay, Gravity Kills, Marilyn Manson (shock!), Orbital, The Clash, Tool, Soundgarden, anime music (El Hazard, Ah My Goddess, and stuff by Two Mix or Megumi Hayashibara especially), and of course,.mods (Maelcum, Skaven, Purple Motion, and Zodiak being some of my faves, although nowhere near the extent of my collection =) a little bit of pretty much everything in there, and I'm sure I'll have added some and deleted others by tommorrow, but you get the idea.
> Following the exact link Hemos posted, Microsoft did not say that NT got a C2 (TCSEC) rating at all. Rather they posted that it passed the ITSEC E3 level testing which is UK based. > Read the article - event the first sentence gives it away: "On April 28th, 1999, the UK Government announced...". Hemos is so busy Microsoft bashing he forgot that the truth actually has some bearing in the matter.
You, on the other hand, are so busy bashing Hemos that you forget to even read what he has written! Or perhaps more accurately, what he hasn't. The entire post was quoted from a slashdot reader who mailed it in. The slashdot reader DID, in fact, say that it recieved the ITSEC rating, as did the title of the article. He only mentioned the TCSEC rating as a comparison for readers unfamiliar with the ITSEC ratings.
> To further prove his blatant incompetence in news reporting, he went on to say that it wasn't certified on a network. Again, this is blatantly false. A single click from the Microsoft page gives this (at http://www.itsec.gov.uk/cgi-bin/cplview.pl?docno=9 5): > "The evaluation of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 excludes Exchange Server, System Management Server (SMS), MS Mail, remote access services and Clipbook viewer. Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and architectures are excluded." > Gee... Sounds like networking to me!! > In fact, NT 3.51 is also rated at E3 level *with* network functionality (again Hemos can't get his facts right).
This is correct; however, it was the person who mailed in the story, not Hemos, who made the error. The quote from the reader is represented to be opinion, not fact.
> To put the icing on the cake for the worst reported article in slashdot history he goes on to mention a misconfiguration bug that has been around for at least a few months now (fixes/workarounds etc. have been around for just as long).
Workarounds, yes - fixes to the underlying problem, no. This is not to say that I would've made the same argument - C2 security is about security concepts, not the actual security of a system. Major implementation problems like this aren't really within its scope.
> Look: If you want to be taken seriously then you have to dump on these losers who would make up the news to bag Microsoft than report the truth. > If Hemos has any integrity left, he'll post a correction/retraction with what actually happened rather than leave his work of fiction up on the site.
Hemos did not write that posting or represent it to be his writing; Slashdot's stories frequently are quoted from users. Furthermore, the links are the substance of the story, not the personal opinions of the person who wrote it in. Your attitude towards Hemos is grossly inappropiate. Perhaps you should make some effort to understand what is represented to opinion and what is represented as fact, and react accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. To take the U.S again there are many millions of people that barely get enough to eat. This is why there are programs in schools to feed children for free. They're hungry. Their families live very close to the edge of disaster and work to survive.
Now I don't like to spoil a wonderful story, but obviously you haven't lived in a 3rd world country. Nobody in the U.S. is living in fear of starvation. (well, perhaps some illegal immigrants, but obviously there are special factors at work there) Even if you have no income whatsoever, there's lots of charity, lots of land on which to grow crops, lots of animals, birds, and suchlike to eat, and lots of supermarkets and restaurants to steal from. Nobody in the U.S. is gonna starve! Just because the American poor do not live a life of ease or comfort, does not mean they cannot survive! Now, I'm not saying that we should just abandon the poor to their own devices, but please don't paint a picture of them as being "on the edge of disaster". It's just not true.
Sorry, you don't have any rights to that "work". Remember, we are talking about a world in which there is no such thing as intellectual property. As soon as you create something, it immediately passes into public domain. There is no licensing -- anybody can do anything with it, including re-releasing under their own name.
Well, there's always the fact that you can only freely copy something you have. If the group of theatres that created this movie refuse to sell it or give copies to anyone until it is no longer making them profits, well, that pokes a hole in the whole "steal their work" business model for the other theatres, eh? Of course, those other theatres can sneak in a camcorder and make a copy that way, but I don't think anyone's gonna be too impressed with that. In other words, no IP means that you can do whatever you want with a copy you have, but doesn't mean they have to let you copy what they have.
You are not only a conduit. Christianity teaches that God embodied you with free will. Take responsibility for your own actions and do not presume to attribute them to God.
As for fear of Murderous Persection, Christians have virtually nothing to fear, especially compared to the abortionists you allege will swarm over your kids if you divulge your identity. Perhaps you should take a look at what they have to face.
Publicly rejecting God is not a supression of religion. If I say "I am an atheist", that does not affect your ability to worship God as you choose. On the other hand, killing someone for publicly rejecting God is murder, and a violation of the Ten Commandments. (Read that Old Testament yourself.) Judge not lest you be judged.
This has to be either a joke that went a little too far, or else one of the sickest displays of doublethink I have ever seen in my life. For one thing, do you really believe he's bragging about practicing cannibalism? It seems to me he's making a joke about the sheer absurdity of confusing a nectarine with a human head.
As for the "amorality" of non-believers in the Christian God, that is patently absurd. It is possible to develop a morality without having it handed to you from on high, although in many of your examples (Islam, for example) it IS handed down in the form of their holy books, just as it is with you. Your choices are simply absurd - Buddhists and Hindus are known as some of the most peace-loving people in the world; Muslims respected Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book' and treated them as equals; they had an enlightened society while the Christian world was in the dark ages. Communism is not a religion, though I believe you refer to the common tactic in Socialism of encouraging atheism. Canadians? That doesn't even dignify a rebuttal!
Your love for your fellow man is obvious. ("Liberals usually have subnormal mentalities.", "howling insanity and sick hate") The only one displaying hate here is you. Way to walk in the path of Jesus; you've entirely missed his message. Religion is not a fight.
"Stalin killed thirty or forty million people. Stalin was an atheist. You figure it out."
Correlation does not imply causation, and you haven't even shown correlation here. You give one example of a notorious murderer who was an atheist and expect to judge all non-Christians by his actions? (Judge not lest you be judged, of course, but its pretty obvious that you're ignoring THAT one totally too.) This is no less absurd than saying:
Hitler ordered the slaughter of approximately 5,709,329 people.
Hitler had brown hair.
You figure it out.
The human race may be in danger, but if it is, it's from McCarthyist religiously intolerant bigots like you, not from decent, honorable people who occasionally make somewhat tasteless jokes.
You can experience this for yourself at a good Indian restaurant; order the "Hot" curry.
I'm going to try to make an analogy here without having too great an understanding of the issue myself, so forgive me if I'm astoundingly stupid here.
Consider the case of a two dimensional universe. Imagine it as a piece of graph paper, with parallel lines on both axes. At the edges in an open universe, the paper would stretch out, and the formerly parallel lines would splay out like a fan. The angle between them would increase. In a closed universe, the paper would scrunch together at the edge, and the angle between the parallel lines would decrease - they would eventually meet. In a flat universe, the universe would remain a perfectly undistorted plane, and the lines would stay parallel forever.
The problem is that to understand the two dimensional universe cause we had to make use of three dimensions; hence understanding the three dimensional case will make use of four. (This is where I start guessing I'm afraid; feel free to correct me) We can imagine the effects despite not being able to imagine four dimensions. Imagine the four square wooden legs of a table. (Leave the tabletop off) Now extend them infinitely up and down. In an open universe, after following them for a very long time distortion would start to be evident - after a VERY long time the legs would become huge and splayed out upwards, curved like the tops of cathedral columns. All three dimensions are stretching, not just the two as before, so the legs would seem to get bigger and bigger and more and more splayed outward. By contrast, in a closed three dimensional universe, the legs would start to bend closer and closer together and shrink imperceptably until after a very long time they shrank to a point. In a flat universe, of course, none of this silliness occurs and the legs stay normal legs forever.
Of course I could be - and probably am - totally on crack. If nothing else, however, I've at least given you an interesting visual. =)
Reading the short blurb in the NYT article about inflation intrigued me greatly because it seemed to imply that we now consider the universe to have a defined state before the Big Bang. The implications of this are quite interesting - if one considers the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe in an absolute sense, with nothing at all before it to explain, one can in a sense simply ignore what brought the Big Bang into being - the very question seems to be undefined. By describing the Big Bang as being initiated by stretching of space caused by interactions of (I assume because of the mention of grand unified theories) super strings, this article caused me to wonder about what that pre-universe world was like, and what its origin was. Can these super strings have always existed, hanging in space, unexplained and unexplainable? This is also sort of related to the notion of space as a bounded entity - in a flat universe, wouldn't that imply that you could leave space? (albeit possibly only if you're massless) Can anyone with a much better knowledge of advanced theoretical physics shed some light on these issues for me, or at least provide further food for thought?
>Hmm, there must be something wrong with me then since I found his piece rather humorous, although a bit crude.
I agree - I saw the humour in it too. Something is funny if it is illogical or absurd or leaves the brain confused in some way. I wrote far more violent stories than this in my elementary school years which I thought were absolutely hilarious, as did most of my peers. The teachers didn't think so mostly because they were taking things too seriously, looking at the violence as if it was real and not just as an absurd fantasy. Ah - analysis takes all the beauty out of things, but you get my point - stuff like this is almost inherently funny because its so absurd.
Not that anyone will real this comment since the story's off the front page =)
I don't know that that's really true, especially not in these days of centralized law enforcement. Any differentiation of treatment that's based on personality is neccessarily limited to those people you deal with PERSONALLY. People with whom you don't deal personally can be judged by standards that make sense for the context in which you're dealing with them - if in business, by professional reputation; if as a criminal, by criminal record. If there are no records to deal with, start by assuming the best and change that assumption as new information comes in. Seems pretty simple to me.
"Your post amuses me. I know that there is a need for the paranoid, the consiracy-theorists, because without you the sane would fall completely into complacency. You keep us aware that we don't live in a perfect world. You keep us aware that people can make mistakes."
Do you think you must be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to believe in protecting your rights? Can only the sane believe in justice, freedom, and presumption of innocence? You shrug off the unjust imprisonment of this child as a "mistake" - how would you feel if this was done to you? The fact of the matter here is that there was not probable cause to arrest this child; it was done out of simple political expediency. (in other words, the principal wanted to do something proactive in the face of the parents' and teacher's concerns) Expediency is not an acceptable reason to violate someone's rights - and it must be remembered that minors DO have almost all of the rights that adults enjoy - and neither is unsubstantiated fear. Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little short-term security deserve neither security nor freedom, as Ben Franklin approximately said.
We base the operation of our system of justice on the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. We provide as many ways out as we can for the accused, because it is better for 10 criminals to go free than for 1 innocent to be punished. We have no need to 'close down all the jails' because we already take care of the problem in other ways - ways you may find just as absurd, judging from your post. We are not - corruption excepted - so utilitarian in these respects as you may think.
You say it is the responsibility of school administrators to do what they can to protect the children under their care. This is certainly true, but the key word is CAN. Police cannot randomly search anyone who is on the streets after 6 PM, even though this might reduce crime, because they must respect peoples' rights. It is no more acceptable to do this based upon statistical likelihood of commiting a crime, or simply because people 'look dangerous' - say, by searching all young black males on the streets after 6 PM. By the same token, though this student may have had a heightened statistical likelihood of commiting a crime by some (questionable) measures, and may have looked dangerous to some of his peers, we cannot arrest him for doing nothing more than exercising his first amendment rights. No matter how much doing this every time might reduce the (already miniscule) amount of violence in schools, we cannot do it, because the civil rights of the individual come first.
At this point, you may object "But I said not to treat him like a criminal!" Yet in the very next sentence you expressed agreement that he should have been removed from society - is that not treating him like a criminal? If we rename the County Jail to the County Happy Camp does it change the reality of the experience for those sent there? A rose by any other name is just as sweet.
What, then, would have been a more appropiate reaction? The teacher could've asked him why he chose to use those names in the story. If the teacher really thought that there was something worthy of concern, and there was a pattern of behavior, not just this one incident, he could have been refered to a counselor. I doubt this incident would've gotten past the inquiry-from-teacher stage.
As far as your claim that wanting to kill someone who's picking on you is mere psychosis, I would say that its a perfectly natural reaction to inescapable problems to want to simply fight your way out of them. It sounds like you have fallen victim to this 'psychosis' too, since you mention beating up all but two of the people who picked on you during your childhood. All you are saying is that you are better at fighting than him - or else have less self control than him. I don't beat up people, much less kill them, even if they pick on me, because it would be wrong and I have no right to do it. But just because I haven't done it doesn't mean I'm not subject to the same psychosis that he - and you - have fallen victim to. Its part of human psychology; its silly to think otherwise.
Well, not all that avant-garde but you gotta take what you can get =) Generally I like music that gets my blood flowing, especially which gets me excited or happy. That seems to be a fairly common thread with all of my friends who code. (I don't know if that's shared by the general slashdot population as I haven't read others' answers yet in an attempt to be unbiased) .mods (Maelcum, Skaven, Purple Motion, and Zodiak being some of my faves, although nowhere near the extent of my collection =)
Here's my selections: Nine Inch Nails, Moby, Primus, Fatboy Slim, Funker Vogt, Pop Will Eat Itself, Prodigy, Tricky, Spring Heel Jack, Ministry, Atari Teenage Riot, Rage Against the Machine, KMFDM, Pills, Juno Reactor, Keoki, Dr. Bombay, Gravity Kills, Marilyn Manson (shock!), Orbital, The Clash, Tool, Soundgarden, anime music (El Hazard, Ah My Goddess, and stuff by Two Mix or Megumi Hayashibara especially), and of course,
a little bit of pretty much everything in there, and I'm sure I'll have added some and deleted others by tommorrow, but you get the idea.
> Following the exact link Hemos posted, Microsoft did not say that NT got a C2 (TCSEC) rating at all. Rather they posted that it passed the ITSEC
9 5):
E3 level testing which is UK based.
> Read the article - event the first sentence gives it away: "On April 28th, 1999, the UK Government announced...". Hemos is so busy Microsoft
bashing he forgot that the truth actually has some bearing in the matter.
You, on the other hand, are so busy bashing Hemos that you forget to even read what he has written! Or perhaps more accurately, what he hasn't. The entire post was quoted from a slashdot reader who mailed it in. The slashdot reader DID, in fact, say that it recieved the ITSEC rating, as did the title of the article. He only mentioned the TCSEC rating as a comparison for readers unfamiliar with the ITSEC ratings.
> To further prove his blatant incompetence in news reporting, he went on to say that it wasn't certified on a network. Again, this is blatantly false. A
single click from the Microsoft page gives this (at http://www.itsec.gov.uk/cgi-bin/cplview.pl?docno=
> "The evaluation of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 excludes Exchange Server, System Management Server (SMS), MS Mail, remote access services
and Clipbook viewer. Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and
architectures are excluded."
> Gee... Sounds like networking to me!!
> In fact, NT 3.51 is also rated at E3 level *with* network functionality (again Hemos can't get his facts right).
This is correct; however, it was the person who mailed in the story, not Hemos, who made the error. The quote from the reader is represented to be opinion, not fact.
> To put the icing on the cake for the worst reported article in slashdot history he goes on to mention a misconfiguration bug that has been around for
at least a few months now (fixes/workarounds etc. have been around for just as long).
Workarounds, yes - fixes to the underlying problem, no. This is not to say that I would've made the same argument - C2 security is about security concepts, not the actual security of a system. Major implementation problems like this aren't really within its scope.
> Look: If you want to be taken seriously then you have to dump on these losers who would make up the news to bag Microsoft than report the truth.
> If Hemos has any integrity left, he'll post a correction/retraction with what actually happened rather than leave his work of fiction up on the site.
Hemos did not write that posting or represent it to be his writing; Slashdot's stories frequently are quoted from users. Furthermore, the links are the substance of the story, not the personal opinions of the person who wrote it in. Your attitude towards Hemos is grossly inappropiate. Perhaps you should make some effort to understand what is represented to opinion and what is represented as fact, and react accordingly.