I saw Ruby on rails, openssl, and a lot of Java too. I understand the reasoning behind reporting it the way they do, but even though Java is installed in Mac OS X by default, the flaws should be reported separately if it affects java users on all platforms. Just doesn't make sense... if I don't use the software at all, does it justify the same severity rating? If I do, and it can be used on any platform, wouldn't it be everyone's problem?
Is there a report that shows reported vulnerabilities that ONLY affect each platform? You could of course link each platform to bundled software that also has known bugs, but lumping the total counts together is not only as meaningless as "reported vulnerabilities", but not even very interesting.
So you can discover the mechanics... Well congrats to you. Likely you'll find that from game to game in the same genre, like from MMO to MMO or FPS to FPS, the mechanics are generally THE SAME ACROSS THE GENRE. In FPS games you get armor, you get damage, you get running, jumping, crouching, rolling, you get modifiers to the damage or mitigation you have. You get modifiers to your aim through calming down your natural sway from breathing. Great, now you know the 'inner workings'. Congratufuckinglations. If you really think every game in a genre is the same, you aren't paying close enough attention. That's what the article is about. Not every FPS or RTS is going to be completely different from the others, but that doesn't mean there aren't at least a couple of good ideas you could gleam from each one. It might even be simple, like "wow, a good UI with a clashing color scheme really kills it." It's guaranteed, you can at least find a few things NOT to do in every game you play. There are even many things outside the gameplay to learn from. How many games got to where they are because of the ability to customize/mod them? A lot a HUGE ones, so that's enough to focus on the subject then.
What makes a game good, a game well designed, is that the mechanics are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth and the ability for a person to feel unique in the game and yet still powerful or useful. And also how the art direction melds with those mechanics. And how polished they are. And the story. I think you're oversimplifying what game mechanics are. "Mechanics" is not an atomic unit of describing anything. The "mechanics" describes all the working parts, and details that make something up. You might argue, in this case, it only describes elements directly related to gameplay, not necessarily art assets, external tools or story lines, although they do contribute. Studying a game's mechanics would INCLUDE how "gameplay elements are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth"
You can go play other games and see the mechanics, but if you aren't creative yourself the best you can do is copy them. And how is that going to get you ahead of the game? You're going to regurgitate and retexture something that is already out there, and the likely case is that yours will quite quickly fall behind that which you copied because, to put it bluntly, you are a copying, plagiarisng, asshole. Who the fuck said you didn't have to be creative to make a good game? We're talking about studying what makes a game good or bad. Bringing different, already tried, gameplay elements together in new ways to make a good game certainly doesn't make one a "copying, plagiarisng, asshole."
So, 6% of the w3schools's viewers, web developers, migrated from previous versions of Windows to the latest. Developers, dude... That Windows 2003 Server has a whole freaking 2% should have said something to you. Have you ever used IE under Win 2003? It's locked down like Alcatraz.
Even if that statistic represented the whole market, almost all new PC's come with Vista preloaded (due to customer demand? HARDY, HAR, HAR!), and the PC market is still growing. Vista's share WILL grow, because the market is stuffed to the gills with Vista PCs. It'd better be growing pretty damned fast before you start trumpeting Vista's success.
This is my favorite part though. The very page you linked to sums it up best:
Statistics Are Often Misleading
You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.
Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old low spec computers. Can't get much clearer than that.
You know what I'd like to see? Some kind of hybrid Apple iDisk with syncing, (only available on Mac hardware currently) and Google Apps. You could work with local copies, or remote via web app, and either would get synced up. No change in workflow for using local office applications, and you'd always have some way of editing/creating documents remotely, which is better than nothing. Google apps couldn't access my iDisk via WebDAV last time I checked though, and it's very inconvenient to manually download/upload files between the two systems. I don't know why Google didn't think of that, unless they really want us to use only their storage for some devious purpose.
It may not be the most popular idea here, with webapps being a supplement rather than a replacement for office docs, but I think it's the most realistic. It could still save some people from buying expensive software licenses to occasionally open work files at home, but I suspect most people already pirate copies of Office from work for that anyway. This kind of reminds me of OWA & Outlook actually.. but for the rest of office.. and plain old filesystem instead of a database.. and storage synchronization/access being entirely independent of the applications using it. Actually, it's a bit closer how GMail & mail clients work together, but bidirectional, and with files, not mail. Ah, you get it...
If generic iDisk-like software were available, and web-apps could directly access other forms of online storage (a blindingly obvious requirement, IMHO) this silly online vs. offline office argument would disappear. We could move on to more important discussions like webapp G vs. webapp M and online storage A vs. online storage G.
What exactly do you feel they're unprepared for?
You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case. I don't have a clue what they really or apparently are doing internally in regards to security, could you explain?
Apple apparent arrogance and ignorance when it comes to security. Forum admins deleting posts from their own forums because they don't belong? No, really, I'm completely guessing, what's so apparent here about their security?
The whole ecosystem and vertical integration is nice. However, the whole thing could come crashing down because of a serious security flaw. How??.....????!!! I'm not going to suggest you're right or wrong. You're saying some incredibly symbolic stuff here, with the 'vertical integration" and the 'crashing down' and all, so why don't you follow this up with um.. proof of something?
Just looking out for the best interests of the public here, nothing personal. I'd like to know 'what' I'm supposed to be afraid off before I start hiding under the covers, that's all.
The ATL is intended to disable things we'd rather not blow up, like Scud launchers. Obviously, the collateral damage from a laser is far less than bombing a dirty Scud.
This isn't just a creative attempt to kill people in new ways. It isn't going to end wars any quicker either, but it's still worth the research.
The article is slashdotted, so I cannot comment with knowledge here. That said, I do hope the fact that OS\X is artificially tied to a particular hardware platform is considered when comparing. This artificial anchor makes OS\X a particularly risky OS to become dependent upon, married to the economic ambitions of a hardware business now dependent on near identical components as so-called 'PC's' (Asustek, Quanta make around 70% of the worlds portables, including Apple's). Where is the risk you're talking about? Apple hardware might catch a deadly disease from PC hardware, whereas Linux can live on like a cockroach though old, obscure scrap computers?
Similarly the need to go to websites to find, install and upgrade software is also a great disadvantage for Apple's platform: Fink/Macports have fairly measley offerings compared to most desktop Linux distributions and both still suffer from the kinds of dependency problems plaguing Linux users 10 years ago (at least that is my experience on Tiger). It's 2007: where's my one-click-system upgrade? The Mac ports of Linux software aren't Appley-enough for you? I can see how you might tout it as an advantage for Ubuntu or something, but lack of a built-in package manager a disadvantage for OS X, really? The majority of Mac users aren't pining for apt-get, that's for damned sure.
While I use OS\X fairly often, these two factors - along with the inflexible bolt-on windowing environment - rule out OS\X as a good general purpose operating system. OS\X is super if you believe you're dependent on proprietary software, but for those that no longer are it offers very little over a modern Linux OS these days. Not often enough to see it's written "Mac OS X" apparently. Boy, am I glad you don't design general purpose operating systems. Is that a weasely way of saying "other than all the proprietary software, Mac OS X offers very little over a modern Linux OS"? If you're not dependent on the high performance engine, a Corvette is just a little prettier than the other cars...
You seem to be saying "Ubuntu is a better Linux than OS X." Well, OK, your requirements are pretty straight forward, stick to your Linux distro.
A single API for storing configuration parameters. What a terrible idea! No, that DOES sound like a good idea, but so does Communism.
The reason that the registry was a problem in Windows was that it was easily corrupted. That was more of a meta-problem.
It works well for multiple users Unix config files have too, for a loooong, long time now. That's a pretty basic requirement for any up-and-coming replacements.
I think the only people that complain about the concept of the registry are idiots at this point. Come on, that's a bit unfair. Help them understand the difference between ideas and implementations by telling them what a registry SHOULD do.
You can toss out your local gconf settings without hosing your system Why not global settings? Don't laugh, many applications can get by without a global conf file by using sane defaults. I do realize that many don't, but I would hope that a newfangled configuration system would fix that.
When an application breaks due to to a bad configuration file, how do you fix/troubleshoot? rm *.conf, restart. A generic configuration is very often created when none is present. mv foo.conf.old foo.conf. Poor man's backup. recover, add foo.conf, restore. File level backups == application level backups. and so on...
When an application breaks due to bad registry/GConf information? restore whole registry?
Why does "A single API for storing configuration parameters" have to be implemented like a database? It sucked for Windows, so XML + schemas will make it work for Linux? W-T-F.
I think a 'good' registry implementation stores data in plain text, and NOT necessarily all in the same place. If it's XML, it might as well be binary. XML is based on some great principals, but EVERYTHING doesn't need to be so extensible OR marked up (obfuscated). Each application's data should be easily segregated, logically, and physically. It should be easy to take a snapshot of a single application's data. Like cp foo.conf foo.old easy. It should be easy to test a snapshot. Apachectl configtest or testparm easy. Decide if users should be able to edit raw backend files, or merely view them, or whether usage of an intermediate layer should be enforced. - Then, go with either easy to read plain text, or heavily optimized binary. Plain text XML might be permissible only in the 'read only' case. Design a GOOD intermediate layer that supports all the above concepts, with a GUI, from the command line, and by any other means current configurations are accessible by. Support for local and global configurations. As in/etc/foo.conf, ~/.foo.conf Easy access controls.. public, private. Ugh.. static, whatever, just keep the learning curve low. Hey, play your backend right and guess what? (if your filesystem access controls sucked to begin with, that's a whole other problem)
This could go on forever. You want to hear the best way to design "a single API for storing configuration parameters"?
1. Take a good, long look at what's possible the old way 2. Don't reduce the user's power. Methods may change, but maintain the same or better control (and ease of use, please). 3. Add features that having a common API enables. Data change notification, for example. 4. K.I.S.S.
Yah, it might be hard to do, most good things are.
With Apple, you get to throw away ALL hardware and software investment you made. To be fair, you could buy a mini and reuse your peripherals. You can also run VMWare, Parallels, or use bootcamp. VMWare goes for Linux also.
Finally, most people aren't going to upgrade to Vista. They'll get it when they buy a new computer. Throwing away old hardware was just a case against switching, but now most people will buy all new PCs anyway?
There may be compelling reasons for upgrading to Vista, or for not switching to a Mac, but I don't see any in your post.
If my links to the LOC don't work, go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007". There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.
Here are the relevant ones I found.
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH] SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH] SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS] SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]
I don't think you understand what this bill means.
I've posted links to the LOC elsewhere, but they don't seem to work anymore.
Go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007". There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.
Here are the relevant ones.
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH] SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH] SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS] SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]
Even if it were completely LEGAL to know about and not report some instance of child abuse (in any medium), you couldn't get away scot- free. I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that by knowingly helping, aiding, abetting, assisting, etc. the committing of a crime, you are highly likely to be charged with something. In the context of this bill, you could be providing the service that one would be using to commit the crime. Not to mention you might take a little flak from your friendly neighbors. Enforcing this doesn't require a cop on every computer. You need to prove someone knew about, and didn't report a given instance of child abuse. It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but you get my drift. We're talking about ABUSE... "think of the children" might be good advice this time.
No amount of wealth or fame could buy the goodwill of a judge or jury that discovered you'd known about child abuse without telling anyone. Sorry, I'm just having a hard time seeing how this might be selectively enforced. The "think of the children" types would eat someone alive if they found out. I'm not saying there aren't gray areas, or plausible reasons for knowing & not reporting, just uhh.. you'd better have a good defense I guess. Selective enforcement to me, means an unjust decision to enforce a law or not.
This bill, or is it this one.. is a lot more specific.
The only new monitoring requirement is that a court may require convicted child abusers to use a monitored internet connection and the provider will get an extra $50 a month. Here's another useful tidbit.. `(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to-- `(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; `(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or `(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).
I'm confused by the different versions too, but what is all the fuss over? I don't see where this will have any real impact on commercial WiFi providers, or individuals.
Is there a real need to offer contact info on your open access point? I'm talking YOURS, not Starbucks's. If you're afraid of what you might see, lock it down or don't look. If you DO find out someone was using your personal WAP to spread kiddy porn, do your best to report them. There are already reporting requirements for child abuse in most states. This will affect anyone providing internet access by any means, not just WiFi. Also, it says IF you find something worth reporting to the NCMEC, report it. Not, "turn off open WiFi access" or "log everything that goes through that tiny WAP of yours"
Are you all getting a little worked up over nothing (or the bad summary)?
Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves.
...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned. Awhat?
Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?
By scope, I meant something like our territories, or our citizens, not uhhh.. people in our penal system, which ARE covered BTW. They may be in prison, but we don't take away all their money or property, dissolve marriages, restrict their freedom of speech, revoke citizenship, etc as a form of punishment.
Damn, I'll trade you my -1 overrated for one of your +1 insightful! Must be a lot of nutty moderators out there...
Neither one of us can really be right because there is no valid way to come to the conclusion that because someone is being guarded by MPs, they are a POW. The OP is wrong though... or at least there is no direct relationship between MPs and POWs as he suggests.
Thanks for the interesting debate though. The OP set us both up for this.
His analogy just doesn't make any sense at all:\ MP:POW::Guard:???
He left us with a huge gap in his reasoning that POWs are related to MPs somehow. (1) Guarded by MPs (n) ???, the "likely argument that follows" as he put it _____________________ Therefore, they are POWs
(n) could be MPs only guard POWs not correct, as I attested to. or even POWs are those that are guarded by MPs not correct either or.. I give up. There is no way to conclude that someone is a POW only because he's guarded by an MP.
Let's go hunt down other fallacious arguments on Slashdot:)
BTW, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.. if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP (1) Guarded by MP __________________ Therefore, they are POW
There's not enough info to make any more conclusions. All we can do is find another premise that might make it correct, and "All POW are guarded by MP" is itself wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong though
No POW is guarded by non-MP POWs are not guarded by non-MP POWs are only guarded by MPs Only MPs guard POWs.
I reordered it to be closer in syntax to my conclusion. As you can see: "If they're guarded by Military Police, POWs are only guarded by MPs, so they're prisoners of war." You still don't make sense.
BTW, how dare you try to pick apart someone's logic and say something like "No POW is guarded by non-MP"? Horrible form man.
"If they're guarded by Military Police, no POW is guarded by non-MP, so they're prisoners of war." You were TRYING to be confusing in the hopes I'd miss that, huh?
This is what the OP said.
If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are? They're guarded by MPs Therefore (with a mysterious logical argument), they are POWs
Here's your fucked up logic with too many negatives, I even fixed it for you in easy to understand steps. No POW is guarded by non-MP POWs are not guarded by non-MP Only MPs guard POWs Yay, no negatives.
And my best guess at his reasoning. MPs only guard POWs
Go ahead and insert both into what the OP said. If they're guarded by Military Police, only MPs guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. You don't make sense. If they're guarded by Military Police, MPs only guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. I do, so shove off, and read "The Art of Deception" or something.
As for the OPs question, I have no fucking clue what is first sentence really means, but in any case, "being guarded by MPs" is not a requirement to be a POW. So, being guarded by guards would not change the fact that they are POWs. His analogy is impossible to solve because he doesn't attempt to describe the first relationship. MP : POW:: guard : ???...POW
It's fucking CYA. I can tell you have military experience because of all the acronyms. It's For Official Use Only because virtually every non-trivial communication is classified by the military because they don't want to deal with oversight, which is usually tied to how they piss away money, not human rights. Yes it is. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that there's a shortage of oversight in the military, but they're definitely trying to avoid criticism from the unwashed masses. You're probably right about their budget being the primary concern for keeping many things quiet. There are plenty of non-budget related things that don't need to be released to the general public, and don't rate being classified though.
The leaker could have scanned the documents in himself. The SOP is definitely real, as other whistle blowers have described parts of it. The only thing that I thought was out of place was the "Camp Rules" stuff that shows up at the top of the diff. It just looks like it doesn't belong. Maybe as an attachment or something, or one of the many leaflets clipped into a SOP binder, but not the way it's presented by the article here.
So you were in the military too, huh? GOOD, so you know exactly what it means to sacrifice your own freedoms and liberties to defend others. Tell all the other readers what it means when you swear that oath. Tell them about the freedom you have while serving your country. Why don't you explain to them the scope of the UCMJ?
Here is our oath, with emphasis added.
"I, ______________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Here is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, in case you forgot why we have one. I've added emphasis around parts you may have forgotten.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I took it fucking seriously. You must be confusing it with some international treaty, and I hope you didn't join the US military with some notion that the scope of our constitution includes the whole fucking world, including our enemies. Do you really understand WHO you're defending it for?
Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.
You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.
One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO. This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be ignorance, IF you really have any evidence.
It could also be doubt.
I saw Ruby on rails, openssl, and a lot of Java too. I understand the reasoning behind reporting it the way they do, but even though Java is installed in Mac OS X by default, the flaws should be reported separately if it affects java users on all platforms. Just doesn't make sense... if I don't use the software at all, does it justify the same severity rating? If I do, and it can be used on any platform, wouldn't it be everyone's problem?
Is there a report that shows reported vulnerabilities that ONLY affect each platform? You could of course link each platform to bundled software that also has known bugs, but lumping the total counts together is not only as meaningless as "reported vulnerabilities", but not even very interesting.
Not every FPS or RTS is going to be completely different from the others, but that doesn't mean there aren't at least a couple of good ideas you could gleam from each one. It might even be simple, like "wow, a good UI with a clashing color scheme really kills it." It's guaranteed, you can at least find a few things NOT to do in every game you play.
There are even many things outside the gameplay to learn from. How many games got to where they are because of the ability to customize/mod them? A lot a HUGE ones, so that's enough to focus on the subject then. What makes a game good, a game well designed, is that the mechanics are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth and the ability for a person to feel unique in the game and yet still powerful or useful. And also how the art direction melds with those mechanics. And how polished they are. And the story. I think you're oversimplifying what game mechanics are. "Mechanics" is not an atomic unit of describing anything. The "mechanics" describes all the working parts, and details that make something up. You might argue, in this case, it only describes elements directly related to gameplay, not necessarily art assets, external tools or story lines, although they do contribute. Studying a game's mechanics would INCLUDE how "gameplay elements are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth" You can go play other games and see the mechanics, but if you aren't creative yourself the best you can do is copy them. And how is that going to get you ahead of the game? You're going to regurgitate and retexture something that is already out there, and the likely case is that yours will quite quickly fall behind that which you copied because, to put it bluntly, you are a copying, plagiarisng, asshole. Who the fuck said you didn't have to be creative to make a good game? We're talking about studying what makes a game good or bad. Bringing different, already tried, gameplay elements together in new ways to make a good game certainly doesn't make one a "copying, plagiarisng, asshole."
Even if that statistic represented the whole market, almost all new PC's come with Vista preloaded (due to customer demand? HARDY, HAR, HAR!), and the PC market is still growing. Vista's share WILL grow, because the market is stuffed to the gills with Vista PCs. It'd better be growing pretty damned fast before you start trumpeting Vista's success.
This is my favorite part though. The very page you linked to sums it up best: Statistics Are Often Misleading
You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.
Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old low spec computers. Can't get much clearer than that.
You know what I'd like to see? Some kind of hybrid Apple iDisk with syncing, (only available on Mac hardware currently) and Google Apps. You could work with local copies, or remote via web app, and either would get synced up. No change in workflow for using local office applications, and you'd always have some way of editing/creating documents remotely, which is better than nothing. Google apps couldn't access my iDisk via WebDAV last time I checked though, and it's very inconvenient to manually download/upload files between the two systems. I don't know why Google didn't think of that, unless they really want us to use only their storage for some devious purpose.
It may not be the most popular idea here, with webapps being a supplement rather than a replacement for office docs, but I think it's the most realistic. It could still save some people from buying expensive software licenses to occasionally open work files at home, but I suspect most people already pirate copies of Office from work for that anyway. This kind of reminds me of OWA & Outlook actually.. but for the rest of office.. and plain old filesystem instead of a database.. and storage synchronization/access being entirely independent of the applications using it. Actually, it's a bit closer how GMail & mail clients work together, but bidirectional, and with files, not mail. Ah, you get it...
If generic iDisk-like software were available, and web-apps could directly access other forms of online storage (a blindingly obvious requirement, IMHO) this silly online vs. offline office argument would disappear. We could move on to more important discussions like webapp G vs. webapp M and online storage A vs. online storage G.
Just looking out for the best interests of the public here, nothing personal. I'd like to know 'what' I'm supposed to be afraid off before I start hiding under the covers, that's all.
I'd love to hear your reasoning. Thanks.
The ATL is intended to disable things we'd rather not blow up, like Scud launchers.
Obviously, the collateral damage from a laser is far less than bombing a dirty Scud.
This isn't just a creative attempt to kill people in new ways. It isn't going to end wars any quicker either, but it's still worth the research.
Is that a weasely way of saying "other than all the proprietary software, Mac OS X offers very little over a modern Linux OS"? If you're not dependent on the high performance engine, a Corvette is just a little prettier than the other cars...
You seem to be saying "Ubuntu is a better Linux than OS X."
Well, OK, your requirements are pretty straight forward, stick to your Linux distro.
When an application breaks due to to a bad configuration file, how do you fix/troubleshoot?
rm *.conf, restart. A generic configuration is very often created when none is present.
mv foo.conf.old foo.conf. Poor man's backup.
recover, add foo.conf, restore. File level backups == application level backups.
and so on...
When an application breaks due to bad registry/GConf information?
restore whole registry?
Why does "A single API for storing configuration parameters" have to be implemented like a database? It sucked for Windows, so XML + schemas will make it work for Linux?
W-T-F.
I think a 'good' registry implementation stores data in plain text, and NOT necessarily all in the same place.
If it's XML, it might as well be binary. XML is based on some great principals, but EVERYTHING doesn't need to be so extensible OR marked up (obfuscated).
Each application's data should be easily segregated, logically, and physically.
It should be easy to take a snapshot of a single application's data. Like cp foo.conf foo.old easy.
It should be easy to test a snapshot. Apachectl configtest or testparm easy.
Decide if users should be able to edit raw backend files, or merely view them, or whether usage of an intermediate layer should be enforced.
- Then, go with either easy to read plain text, or heavily optimized binary. Plain text XML might be permissible only in the 'read only' case.
Design a GOOD intermediate layer that supports all the above concepts, with a GUI, from the command line, and by any other means current configurations are accessible by.
Support for local and global configurations. As in
Easy access controls.. public, private. Ugh.. static, whatever, just keep the learning curve low. Hey, play your backend right and guess what? (if your filesystem access controls sucked to begin with, that's a whole other problem)
This could go on forever.
You want to hear the best way to design "a single API for storing configuration parameters"?
1. Take a good, long look at what's possible the old way
2. Don't reduce the user's power. Methods may change, but maintain the same or better control (and ease of use, please).
3. Add features that having a common API enables. Data change notification, for example.
4. K.I.S.S.
Yah, it might be hard to do, most good things are.
There may be compelling reasons for upgrading to Vista, or for not switching to a Mac, but I don't see any in your post.
The soundtrack from the original is my favorite.
If my links to the LOC don't work,
go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007".
There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.
Here are the relevant ones I found.
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]
I don't think you understand what this bill means.
I've posted links to the LOC elsewhere, but they don't seem to work anymore.
Go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007".
There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.
Here are the relevant ones.
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]
Even if it were completely LEGAL to know about and not report some instance of child abuse (in any medium), you couldn't get away scot- free. I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that by knowingly helping, aiding, abetting, assisting, etc. the committing of a crime, you are highly likely to be charged with something. In the context of this bill, you could be providing the service that one would be using to commit the crime. Not to mention you might take a little flak from your friendly neighbors.
Enforcing this doesn't require a cop on every computer. You need to prove someone knew about, and didn't report a given instance of child abuse. It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but you get my drift. We're talking about ABUSE... "think of the children" might be good advice this time.
No amount of wealth or fame could buy the goodwill of a judge or jury that discovered you'd known about child abuse without telling anyone. Sorry, I'm just having a hard time seeing how this might be selectively enforced. The "think of the children" types would eat someone alive if they found out. I'm not saying there aren't gray areas, or plausible reasons for knowing & not reporting, just uhh.. you'd better have a good defense I guess. Selective enforcement to me, means an unjust decision to enforce a law or not.
Maybe we have different ideas of what "selective enforcement" means.
You are already required to report cases of child abuse in most states.
The article mentions this existing law...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00013032----000-.html
No monitoring requirements, no evidence preservation, weak, etc.
So, you already have to report known cases.
This bill, or is it this one.. is a lot more specific.
The only new monitoring requirement is that a court may require convicted child abusers to use a monitored internet connection and the provider will get an extra $50 a month.
Here's another useful tidbit..
`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).
I'm confused by the different versions too, but what is all the fuss over? I don't see where this will have any real impact on commercial WiFi providers, or individuals.
If you DO find out someone was using your personal WAP to spread kiddy porn, do your best to report them. There are already reporting requirements for child abuse in most states.
This will affect anyone providing internet access by any means, not just WiFi.
Also, it says IF you find something worth reporting to the NCMEC, report it. Not, "turn off open WiFi access" or "log everything that goes through that tiny WAP of yours"
Are you all getting a little worked up over nothing (or the bad summary)? Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves.
Hehe, I understand
...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned. Awhat?Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?
By scope, I meant something like our territories, or our citizens, not uhhh.. people in our penal system, which ARE covered BTW. They may be in prison, but we don't take away all their money or property, dissolve marriages, restrict their freedom of speech, revoke citizenship, etc as a form of punishment.
Damn, I'll trade you my -1 overrated for one of your +1 insightful! Must be a lot of nutty moderators out there...
Neither one of us can really be right because there is no valid way to come to the conclusion that because someone is being guarded by MPs, they are a POW.
:\
:)
The OP is wrong though... or at least there is no direct relationship between MPs and POWs as he suggests.
Thanks for the interesting debate though. The OP set us both up for this.
His analogy just doesn't make any sense at all
MP:POW::Guard:???
He left us with a huge gap in his reasoning that POWs are related to MPs somehow.
(1) Guarded by MPs
(n) ???, the "likely argument that follows" as he put it
_____________________
Therefore, they are POWs
(n) could be MPs only guard POWs
not correct, as I attested to.
or even POWs are those that are guarded by MPs
not correct either
or.. I give up. There is no way to conclude that someone is a POW only because he's guarded by an MP.
Let's go hunt down other fallacious arguments on Slashdot
BTW, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion..
if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP
(1) Guarded by MP
__________________
Therefore, they are POW
There's not enough info to make any more conclusions. All we can do is find another premise that might make it correct, and "All POW are guarded by MP" is itself wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong though
"There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW"
That's not what I'm saying, but how else could the original poster come to the conclusion that Guarded by MPs, therefore, they are POWs?
I missed a step, so in case you're confused...
No POW is guarded by non-MP
POWs are not guarded by non-MP
POWs are only guarded by MPs
Only MPs guard POWs.
I reordered it to be closer in syntax to my conclusion.
As you can see:
"If they're guarded by Military Police, POWs are only guarded by MPs, so they're prisoners of war."
You still don't make sense.
BTW, how dare you try to pick apart someone's logic and say something like "No POW is guarded by non-MP"? Horrible form man.
"If they're guarded by Military Police, no POW is guarded by non-MP, so they're prisoners of war." You were TRYING to be confusing in the hopes I'd miss that, huh?
Therefore (with a mysterious logical argument), they are POWs
Here's your fucked up logic with too many negatives, I even fixed it for you in easy to understand steps.
No POW is guarded by non-MP
POWs are not guarded by non-MP
Only MPs guard POWs Yay, no negatives.
And my best guess at his reasoning.
MPs only guard POWs
Go ahead and insert both into what the OP said.
If they're guarded by Military Police, only MPs guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. You don't make sense.
If they're guarded by Military Police, MPs only guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. I do, so shove off, and read "The Art of Deception" or something.
As for the OPs question, I have no fucking clue what is first sentence really means, but in any case, "being guarded by MPs" is not a requirement to be a POW. So, being guarded by guards would not change the fact that they are POWs. His analogy is impossible to solve because he doesn't attempt to describe the first relationship. MP : POW
How 'bout dem apples?
Winked at what, exactly?
So you were in the military too, huh? GOOD, so you know exactly what it means to sacrifice your own freedoms and liberties to defend others. Tell all the other readers what it means when you swear that oath. Tell them about the freedom you have while serving your country. Why don't you explain to them the scope of the UCMJ?
Here is our oath, with emphasis added.
"I, ______________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Here is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, in case you forgot why we have one. I've added emphasis around parts you may have forgotten.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I took it fucking seriously. You must be confusing it with some international treaty, and I hope you didn't join the US military with some notion that the scope of our constitution includes the whole fucking world, including our enemies. Do you really understand WHO you're defending it for?
Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.
You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.
One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO.
This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.
Semper Fi