Or, consider the unwashed barbarians who conquered Al-Andalus, or Muslim Spain, which was one of the most peaceful, tolerant, and sophisticated states of its era.
The Romans did pretty well when they conquered the (arguably more advanced) Greeks and Egyptians. The Mongols conquered the far more advanced Chinese and assimilated into its culture; Kublai Khan is one of the great leaders of China.
But then all you're doing, really, is fooling yourself. It's no better than Microsoft's now-you-see-it-now-you-don't UAC. A way around a security barrier means there's no barrier at all.
Do you run your bank browser in the same X11 session as your regular user account? If so, you've opened up a security vulnerability. Windows people call this a "shatter attack", but X11 is just as vulnerable to it. Security is hard.
The next day, Woodrow Mann, the Mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Governor Faubus. The 101st took positions immediately, and the, nine students successfully entered the school on the next day, Wednesday, September 25, 1957.
Thanks for the correction. Now I understand why I was confused, however. My mistaken recollection was that Eisenhower simply federalized the national guard and used it directly.
If the sheriff refuses to evict a tenant, and mass public opinion is behind him, who exactly do you expect to *make* him evict the tenant?
In extreme cases, the national guard. That's how the federal government forced communities in the south to integrate their schools over the popular opposition of the locals.
I may wrong. Apparently, the government has tried to bring "public nuisance" lawsuits against private parties, though the one in question was voluntarily dismissed by the state (in my mind, probably to avoid a precedent being set by the state's defeat.) This kind of lawsuit is a terrible idea for numerous reasons.
The popularity of the "erotic services" section drives traffic to the site, making their employment ads more profitable.
An effect as vague as the one you describe isn't falsifiable, and therefore isn't testable, and therefore shouldn't be actionable in any legal system I'd consider sane.
As a character on a popular television show said, if you go back far enough, you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two. Claims ought to require reality, not merely plausibility.
A writ of mandamus...is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law...issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.
Couldn't the bank ask a court to compel the sheriff to execute the law?
As to standing, when the matter involves a public matter, such as crime or a public nuisance, the state has standing to seek judicial relief.
IANAL, but I imagine that although the government can sue when it normally would have standing, such as when the defendant is involved in an accident with a police vehicle, the government's ability to exert its influence outside that scope relies on criminal law, not civil. Things like traffic tickets are infractions, the lowest level of criminal law. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Buffalo's Artvoice has ads that look awfully like prostitution ads. They're more amusing than anything else, and help pay for this great weekly paper.
I never really cared about prostitution though. It should be legal, but it's never appealed to me. If you have to pay for it, what's the point? And if it's just the physical sensation, I can take care of that on my own, thankyouverymuch.
As this is a civil case, doesn't one need standing to file a suit? As I understand it, that means that the individual bringing the suit has to ask for a remedy the court can provide, which would be redress of damage. Party A can't sue B for what B did to C because A was not harmed, and therefore has no standing. In what way has craigslist damaged the sherrif, and what damages is he asking the court to redress, exactly?
How can a contract's validity depend on the contents of other contracts. A contract ought to be valid or invalid in itself, subject to any appropriate legislation. A contract's validity depending on the behavior of other actors is fundamentally unfair.
First of all, MD5 is going away. It's not a flaw in SSL so much as a flaw in one hash function, and even with that flaw, it takes an insane effort to generate a fraudulent SSL certificate.
And in general, yes, you get a certificate warning. That's my entire fucking point! Users must be trained to heed these warnings. It's not hard. The indicator is very simple. The only alternative is to fail hard when seeing an invalid certificate, and that's not going to happen: it'd upset too many people. It's not a flaw in SSL that users ignore it! It's like running a motherfucking red light and whining that the red light is broken.
Get off your high horse. Upstart works equally well with shell scripts for events. Shell scripting is plenty useful and is here to stay. The only reason you'd shun it is if you were a cocky newbie who hasn't yet learned to not re-invent the wheel.
/etc/init.d/acpid: Bourne-Again shell script text executable /etc/init.d/btseed: Bourne-Again shell script text executable /etc/init.d/bttrack: Bourne-Again shell script text executable /etc/init.d/capi: Bourne-Again shell script text executable ...
Err, what? Shell scripts are used all the time. Even upstart services are still often written as shell scripts. Really, why all the anti-shell hostility around here?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, consider the unwashed barbarians who conquered Al-Andalus, or Muslim Spain, which was one of the most peaceful, tolerant, and sophisticated states of its era.
The Romans did pretty well when they conquered the (arguably more advanced) Greeks and Egyptians. The Mongols conquered the far more advanced Chinese and assimilated into its culture; Kublai Khan is one of the great leaders of China.
But then all you're doing, really, is fooling yourself. It's no better than Microsoft's now-you-see-it-now-you-don't UAC. A way around a security barrier means there's no barrier at all.
Do you run your bank browser in the same X11 session as your regular user account? If so, you've opened up a security vulnerability. Windows people call this a "shatter attack", but X11 is just as vulnerable to it. Security is hard.
Because as a general rule, things ought to be permitted by default and banned only for a damn good reason. Who are you to judge what's worthwhile?
Thanks for the correction. Now I understand why I was confused, however. My mistaken recollection was that Eisenhower simply federalized the national guard and used it directly.
In extreme cases, the national guard. That's how the federal government forced communities in the south to integrate their schools over the popular opposition of the locals.
And for when we're feeling adventurous and little dirty, we have STDERR. :-)
I may wrong. Apparently, the government has tried to bring "public nuisance" lawsuits against private parties, though the one in question was voluntarily dismissed by the state (in my mind, probably to avoid a precedent being set by the state's defeat.) This kind of lawsuit is a terrible idea for numerous reasons.
An effect as vague as the one you describe isn't falsifiable, and therefore isn't testable, and therefore shouldn't be actionable in any legal system I'd consider sane.
As a character on a popular television show said, if you go back far enough, you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two. Claims ought to require reality, not merely plausibility.
What about Writs of Mandamus?
Couldn't the bank ask a court to compel the sheriff to execute the law?
IANAL, but I imagine that although the government can sue when it normally would have standing, such as when the defendant is involved in an accident with a police vehicle, the government's ability to exert its influence outside that scope relies on criminal law, not civil. Things like traffic tickets are infractions, the lowest level of criminal law. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Buffalo's Artvoice has ads that look awfully like prostitution ads. They're more amusing than anything else, and help pay for this great weekly paper.
I never really cared about prostitution though. It should be legal, but it's never appealed to me. If you have to pay for it, what's the point? And if it's just the physical sensation, I can take care of that on my own, thankyouverymuch.
As this is a civil case, doesn't one need standing to file a suit? As I understand it, that means that the individual bringing the suit has to ask for a remedy the court can provide, which would be redress of damage. Party A can't sue B for what B did to C because A was not harmed, and therefore has no standing. In what way has craigslist damaged the sherrif, and what damages is he asking the court to redress, exactly?
How can a contract's validity depend on the contents of other contracts. A contract ought to be valid or invalid in itself, subject to any appropriate legislation. A contract's validity depending on the behavior of other actors is fundamentally unfair.
<grammar-nazi>
An implication is something meant, but not stated. What you meant to say is: Amazon is not "caving" as the title claims.
Sounds like a perfect application for one-off credit card numbers.
It's the The Associated Press, a wire service.
First of all, MD5 is going away. It's not a flaw in SSL so much as a flaw in one hash function, and even with that flaw, it takes an insane effort to generate a fraudulent SSL certificate.
And in general, yes, you get a certificate warning. That's my entire fucking point! Users must be trained to heed these warnings. It's not hard. The indicator is very simple. The only alternative is to fail hard when seeing an invalid certificate, and that's not going to happen: it'd upset too many people. It's not a flaw in SSL that users ignore it! It's like running a motherfucking red light and whining that the red light is broken.
Fascinating. Thanks -- I always supposed google's SSL configuration was top-notch, but I guess not:
danc@pluto ~]$ openssl s_client -connect www.google.com:https -verify 99 -cipher 'kEDH+HIGH:kEDH+MEDIUM' /dev/null
verify depth is 99
CONNECTED(00000003)
4869:error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure:s23_clnt.c:578:
Thanks. I'll have to play with fish a bit. It certainly seems interesting.
Broken link. Try this: Reflections on Trusting Trust. It's the most frightening security paper of the last 30 years.
Erm, on what modern system is bash not available?
Get off your high horse. Upstart works equally well with shell scripts for events. Shell scripting is plenty useful and is here to stay. The only reason you'd shun it is if you were a cocky newbie who hasn't yet learned to not re-invent the wheel.