And, they were taken by the girls themselves. Who was being exploited here? Isn't that the point of the laws, to deal with the sick fucks who exploit children? Not to mention 15yo girls are *JAILBAIT* not CP.
A law that can be used so easily to prosecute somebody for the wrong reasons needs to be abolished.
Whatever happened to people who didn't want everyone to see them naked and preferred to wait until they were at least out of high school before people of the opposite sex saw them naked? How young should we let this go? With younger and younger kids getting cell phones exactly what is the cut off point (if 14 and 15 isn't it) where we say to someone that they should be a little more responsible, a little less open with their bodies, and try to get it in their thick heads they don't need to be sending naked pics of themselves to begin with? What happened to society to cause 14 and 15 year old *girls* to *willingly* do this? I emphasize girls because guys are always willing to send naked pics. It's the women who don't like receiving them and now they seem to be more than willing to be the distributors.
Because AD is 'far more than LDAP and Kerberos,' Bartlett said, Samba 4 is not only about developing with Microsoft's customization of those protocols, it is also about moving the project beyond just providing an NT 4 compatible domain manager."
MS has not customized the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol as far as I know (they customized the schema though but everyone else does too except the OpenLDAP project) however I believe I heard a while back that they have made some changes to the Kerberos protocol. I just wanted to clear that up.
What was this tool you created called, is there a copy online anywhere? What's difficult about a Unix admin setting up a script. And you don't have to use the CLI for everything, you put it in a script and let the machine do it.
It doesn't matter because I didn't release my tool. It is functional and works for multiple directories but I never put enoug features into it though to be comfortable with releasing it. I've used it at work a few times though. The problem with the CLI is that someone must know LDAP in and out in order to write scripts and LDIF files when GUI tools are not available. I find it quicker to use the GUI even though I know LDAP pretty well. Unless I'm doing batch operations the GUI is better.
'These problems have been solved by using OpenLDAP and Samba TNG software'
I didn't see anywhere in that article how to setup the Windows clients to communicate with Samba as the provider of domain services. Since it was left out I assume it is as simple as adding the clients to the Samba domain just as if it were a DC and the Windows clients don't know any better?
"ADS hides replication from you (accessible through Sites and Services snap-in though)"
It really amazes me how MS releases a utility with most of the core components missing and then charges you more for the 'snapins'.
MS doesn't charge for the Sites and Services snap-in. In fact, the 3 snap-ins needed for ADS administration are available as soon as ADS is installed. They are also available in the Admin Tools Pack MSI so you can install them on workstations so you don't have to login to a server everytime to make changes. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. Many diagnostic tools are available as separate downloads in resource kits as well.
Not only will it not help them but it won't help car owners. People who have a 10-20 year old car usually do so because they don't have the money for a new one. Giving them less than $5k for it (probably not worth more than that anyway) is not going to be incentive enough for most I would think to help them get a car to replace the one they are giving up.
I agree with your statements regarding what ADS provides and what OpenLDAP does not. The fact that OpenLDAP gives you a backend and nothing else is one reason I did not recommend it to the submitter however your subject for your post is not correct. ADS *is* LDAP. It uses LDAP underneath just as any other directory server does on the market today. Many also can integrate with Kerberos just as ADS does. I hate when people call ADS "Active Directory" and then they refer to Sun's implementation as an "LDAP server" or whatever. The fact is ADS is as much LDAP as any other. MS has just added attributes to the schema to fit a Windows infrastructure but then again so has Sun for Solaris clients. The LDAP schema was meant to be extended and can even be extended by the administrators to add custom attributes and object classes for companies who want to integrate their products with it. MS is no different in what they did. It's their own implementation of it just as Sun has their implementation. If someone wants an unadulterated implementation of a directory server they should go for OpenLDAP but they will be sorry (if only due to lack of management tools).
I don't often recommend SUN products with the exception of Solaris but Sun Java System Directory Server Enterprise Edition has actually proven to be a very stable solution. I don't believe its open source but I believe it is free. There is also an identity synchronization tool that allows you to sync your LDAP to AD servers if needed. Handles multimaster replication between however many nodes flawlessly with very good performance in my experience. It'll run on Windows,Linux, or of course Solaris.
I much prefer the old Sun Directory Server to the new Java System Directory Server (SDS) even though SDS 5.2 still had issues. The new one is a step backwards in my opinion. You can't create POSIX accounts directory using the GUI; a POSIX Group object class is available in the list but not a POSIX account. For every POSIX account I have to creat an inetOrgPerson and modify it. It also won't let me deactivate or re-enable accounts using the GUI. I have to use CLI scripts (which don't work out of the box and had to be fixed) and to unlock accounts I have to reset the account password. I shouldn't have to do that. It also won't let me do anything with the operational attributes. They are strictly read-only, at least through the slow web GUI. I haven't attempted an ldapmodify command.
It is free if you don't want support but it isn't open source. I've found that 2 times over the last 8 months it has broken its own replication. I've had to go in to the web GUI and fix it. Also, being on Solaris is a pain in the ass. Their patch system is a mess and nonsensical to me (a Windows/Linux person). You can't tell whether you need a patch or not and Sun Java System requires a ton of patches whether or not they really affect any of the components you have installed. I have other gripes about how Solaris clients had to have the LDAP schema modified in SDS before they could authenticate but I won't get into that. We use Solaris 9 at work if you are curious.
The main contenders for this purpose seem to be Fedora Directory Server, OpenDS, and Apache Directory Server;
OpenLDAP is too plain and simple. It isn't user-friendly. There are no GUI tools that come with it although there are various tools people have made that you can use to manage it. I even created one myself as a senior project because it doesn't come with one and having to use the CLI commands for everything is just more trouble than it is worth when you want to get up and running quickly.
I haven't ever used Apache Directory Server so I can't speak to that but Fedora Directory Server comes from the Netscape Directory Server of yore. NDS went under and Sun Directory Server took its place. Netscape and Sun Directory Servers are basically the same thing, even the GUIs are the same except for name/logo changes here and there. FDS should be pretty good based on the NDS/SDS pedigree. OpenDS is new and runs using Java therefore it automatically requires more resources than the others which are built with C/C++. I'd let OpenDS mature a bit more before using it. Of the ones you mention I'd pick Fedora Directory Server.
But I have some questions. Do you plan to migrate clients over to a non-Windows OS? If not you'll need to investigate how to continue making Windows clients authenticate to a non-MS directory. It is possible to make this happen but past methods of doing so (a few years ago for me) have been kludgey at best. Windows likes to talk to ADS. If you migrate to Linux clients your job gets much easier because you don't have to worry about Windows SIDs and similar critical components of a Windows infrastructure.
Do you have people who know directory servers and understand LDAP? Be aware that ADS makes things easy for a Windows administrator. Even Sun Directory Server does not automatically enable replication when you have it installed on 2 servers. I highly doubt the other implementations you are looking at do the same. Therefore you will have to really understand how directory servers work underneath when working with these other implementations. You have to create replication agreements yourself and understand the underlying LDAP structure. ADS hides replication from you (accessible through Sites and Services snap-in though) until something breaks. The schema is hidden from you as well unless you need to access it (not even in the default list of MMC snap-ins but it can be added). Make sure you have people who can administer directory server installations, not just ADS installations, when you do this migration.
In case it helps for the future, Radio Shack carries Arctic Silver, 9.99 a tube. But I know it would be nice for a brick and mortar store to sell motherboards and CPUs like CompUSA used to do.
Creator doesn't imply any particular God either, it seems deliberately chosen to be ambiguous. 'Year of our Lord' is a common expression.
The point being that they could have very well left those things out of the text but they did not. It doesn't specify which God but the poing being they still believed in a religion with a higher power which created us. As far as being founded on secularism, this is evidence against that being wrong. It doesn't matter that it doesn't specify a Christian God.
Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
There is a difference between government controlling religion (such as enforcement or punishment for nonconformance) and government supporting the people's religion. Obviously not everyone in the "people" will have the same religion but there are no consequences for not conforming to the people's religion whether at the state or federal level. True integration occurs in Middle Eastern countries, not in the U.S. People need reminded of that all too often. The U.S. gov't tries to support the people's religion and it can do so (and has done so) without having a religion of its own that it tries to enforce on the people.
'Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.'
Countless Christians are tortured and killed in foreign countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, just for being Christian but this is rarely reported in the media. If you want to talk about tolerance toward religion then let's start there.
The treaty of Tripoli written in 1796 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
This could easily be interpreted (just as the 1st amendment is twisted, I mean interpreted) to mean that it isn't necessarily founded on the Christian religion but that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion at all. If it wasn't founded on *any* religion then why does "Creator" exist in the Declaration of Independence?
So while obviously many leaders were probably Christians and went to church, it seems clear that the founders were attempting to separate church and state, and were incredibly progressive in doing so.
Separating church from state and state from church are 2 different things. The founders did not want a repeat of European countries where the state defines what religion you must be a member of and punishes you for nonconformance. It is quite okay to have church integrated with the state and it is also quite okay for the state to support the people's religion just as long as those who are not members of that religion have the freedom to continue that choice without repercussions, otherwise that would be enforcing the people's religion and we don't want that.
At the present time, there are no repercussions. You can just as well walk down the street and see a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and look the other way without being arrested, jailed, fined, whatever. You can even go back home afterwards and worship Satan, or just as well pray to Satan on the lawn with the nativity scene behind you. You have that freedom. But don't take away the freedom for the People to be reminded of and comforted by their common religion by having the nativity scene removed. That is just a double standard. Nothing is taken away from you by having the nativity scene in place but you *are* taking something away from the People.
Which amendment to the constitution added "under god"?
"Creator" is, and always has been, in the Declaration of Independence and I don't think it is meant to refer to your parents. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." For people who are considered non-religious by secularists who want to make people think the U.S. is a secular country the Founding Fathers have an awful lot of religious references, as in more than 0, in the founding documents. Note that they were smart enough to not specify any certain religion be built into the country. That was one reason for leaving Europe in the first place. But they still held religious beliefs (and respected both those who did and did not share their views by not stifling them) and even the Capitol has been used for church services in recent times when Congress isn't in session. The Congress even authorized a church be built for them in 1800. Gov't buildings have been built with religion in mind too. It was done for the people, not for the gov't itself (e.g. In God We Trust displayed in various locations such as on the Speaker of the House's Rostrum in the House Chamber). Oh the horror!
I'm productive at work by not ever logging out or shutting down the machine unless absolutely necessary. I never shutdown my machine at home either unless absolutely necessary. At home I usually have to about once a month because PowerDVD stops playing DVDs and a reboot is the only way I've found to fix the problem. At work I currently have an uptime of about 60 days. Both work and home machines run WinXP. Why are you shutting your machine down every day? To reopen 5-10 tabs in FF, 2 IE (v6) windows, a couple My Computer windows, Notepad for notes, a couple Word docs, maybe a couple Excel files, Outlook (TBird at home) and currently a PowerPoint presentation, I'd lose more than just 10 seconds a day.
Seriously though, does anybody actually work only 40 hours a week?
For the latter half of last year I was working anywhere from 45-60 hours a week and around the October timeframe I hit 70 a couple times in a single week. Since the second week of December I am now working 40 hour weeks again and sometimes less than that (I fill in with personal time to still get a steady 40 hr worth paycheck). I'm a gov't contractor. The projects for the main contract typically end on fiscal year boundaries (FY ends September 30) and last year the contract itself was supposed to end on October 1 but scope creep on a few projects caused the contract to end in December which still required massive OT. With the next contract's projects' RFPs not coming out that fast so far, work has been back to normal (and yes, there is still work, like documentation). However I'm sure this isn't the case for all gov't Departments.
The gov't can procure products from foreign companies as long as the company's home country is a U.S. ally and has a U.S. satellite office. Because RIM is based in Canada this isn't an issue. Since someone mentioned how much R&D it could cost to develop a BlackBerry just for him I'll add that I wish they would design a BlackBerry that didn't have a camera for both gov't contractors and employees to use while at work. These idiot carriers/manufacturers think that everyone must have a camera and not everyone needs one nor wants one. I can't take my phone into work because it has a camera. With RIM making phones for business- people and now Obama is known to have one (as I know other gov't employees I work with have one issued by the gov't; they have older ones w/o a camera) it would be in RIM's best interest (and other manufacturers) to think of this segment of the market. Isn't the U.S. gov't the largest employer in the U.S.? Not every employee needs to have a non-camera phone but anyone in the DOD, NSA, and DOJ could probably take advantage of it. I know I could.
Actually, Sony buys the "guts" of their HD TVs from Samsung and just puts them in a slick case and slaps their logo in it. You can buy the exact same TV from Samsung without paying extra for the Sony brand.
I was just at Best Buy on Sunday. I looked at a lot of LCD TVs (they had very few plasmas I noticed). They had many in a row on 2 levels of shelves so I could easily compare about 8 all at once. I noticed the Sony KDL52W4100 had the best picture as far as color vibrance and contrast are concerned. Why wouldn't the Samsung and the Sony TVs be the same if what you say is true?
Now I'm happy to also give you some good news. You're probably not graduating until the summer. That's great. First of all, the economy will be just about to turn around (the media won't tell you, but they also didn't tell you one year ago that we were in a recession).
The government has to be the entity that says we are in a recession after 2 consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. There is nothing for the media to report if the gov't economists don't say anything. There is still the issue of why it took so long for them to say something though but it wasn't the media's fault in my opinion.
When someone wants money for a holiday they refuse to mention in their commercials then that offends me. It is hypocritical. There is no reason to diminish Christmas for the sake of making a feeble attempt at trying to recognize all the other things that could possibly be celebrated in the month of December. When people lie about the reason for *not* saying "Christmas" in their greetings and advertising is when I get offended because I know the real reason they are not saying "Christmas". You can't exactly recognize everything by not recognizing anything when you say "Happy Holidays".
Some people (especially school systems across the United States so I'll go with that example) use the excuse that they don't want to offend anyone by only saying "Merry Christmas" and removing all remnants of "Christmas" if it has anything to do with the school (e.g. kids now have a winter break not a Christmas break and winter plays now talk about global warming instead of Jesus around Christmas time). They do so without ever caring, or possibly intentionally knowing, that they are offending the people who celebrate Christmas. I guess it is not okay to offend the pagans who celebrate the solstice (or whatever they do) and who don't represent anything close to a sizable portion of the U.S. population but it is okay to offend Christians who make up a very large portion of the U.S. population. Using the 1st amendment in the case of the school systems for not mentioning Christmas (and by extension, Christ) is not even logical because celebrating the winter solstice is associated with the pagan religion. As long as it isn't the Christian religion it must be okay though.
If people would just admit the real reason for not mentioning Christmas I'd be happier but still offended. At least then they would finally stop being cowards and finally let their agendas be visible to everyone, including those who prefer to ignore bias against Christianity. People who are accused of being a conspiracy theorist would finally be vindicated. More people would probably fight it too which is why none of the organizations who are proponents of the bias are ever going to admit their true agendas.
So, essentially your reasoning is that it would be ludicrous for somebody to be offended by a simple, holiday-related sentiment offered in good spirit? Or at least, they shouldn't be nearly as offended by yours as you are by theirs?
Prove to me that "Happy Holiday" is so much better than "Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year". What is wrong with saying the name of the holiday to make it more personal? Why say anything at all if we aren't going to say the holiday name? You can be generic and non-personal by saying "Happy Holiday" but can you still say in good faith it is done in good spirit especially with the ulterior motive that they are doing it in a purposeful attempt to get around saying "Christmas"? How is that good spirit? What ever happened to the Christmas spirit? It has been lost, or maybe more appropriately, taken away by the PC crowd. Now we all celebrate winter solstice!! Yay!!! Bottom line is that no one has ever been reported of complaining about "Merry Christmas" to force so many corporations and the media (especialy the Associated Press in their articles) to change to "Happy Holidays" but many thousands or millions have complained to change things back. That's why Wal-Mart went back to mentioning "Christmas" in all their commercials. Maybe this non-religious viewpoint will help: If a company wants to make money off a holiday then they shouldn't so coward and try to be so politically correct to never say its name in their ads. Not acknowledging it by name but wanting to make 30-50% of your yearly revenue from it is hypocritical.
Which "holiday" are you referring to? Kwanzaa? Hanukkah? Christmas?
Oh, sorry, were you not aware that there is more than one "holiday" that occurs this time of year? Or am I just being (sniff) "too pee see."
Were you not aware we have holidays all year but for some reason it is only during Christmastime when people want to avoid saying one of the holiday names, namely "Christmas"? Why isn't there an attempt to be politically correct any other time of year? Some people may be offended by Martin Luther King Jr and his speech content but his birthday as a holiday is still referred to by name instead of being lumped in with New Year's or as a standalone generic holiday. Some people even celebrate Halloween like it is an official holiday when it is not and companies spend a lot of money on Halloween advertising and actually call it by name. But yet they can't call Christmas by its name. Why the obvious bias? If they *still* have Christmas-themed commercials what is so bad about saying "Chrismas" *during* the commercial? They want the money but don't want to acknowledge the Christian religion.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging all the holidays (Hanuakkah and Christmas) at the end of the year but you can't expect to acknowledge them by saying "Happy Holidays". I don't see any Hanuakkah commercials either so if they were being truly diverse instead of just having a bias against Christmas then we should be seeing Hanukkah commercials from all the companies who say "Happy Holidays". Best Buy is the only company I know of that had a commercial referencing Hanukkah last year. I don't know if they had a Christmas version or not though. The year before I know they made every attempt to avoid "Christmas" in their commercials despite wanting the money from it. Hypocritical at the least and offensive at worst.
For the record I couldn't care less. I find my self wondering more and more each year why I am celebrating a holiday of a religion I don't even follow. (kids) We need a return to the root of our holidays. Christmas was a pagan year end celebration. Easter was a pagan holiday celebrating fertility. It fell in the spring as winter ended and new life sprouted. The Christians usurped these holidays as representing their beliefs and their christ.
I know at least 1 person who "celebrates" Christmas but not for the religious reasons which to me doesn't make any sense whatsoever but it does offend me. I guess to those people maybe Happy Holiday is just fine but to those who celebrate it for the right reasons it is offensive. Kwanzaa isn't a holiday and I can understand the Jewish people possibly being offended by most people saying Merry Christmas but most people celebrate Christmas compared to Hanukkah so the odds are in a person's favor of saying Merry Christmas to someone else and being correct. However the Jewish people have never complained; it is only the media and some corporations who are taking matters into their own hands to diminish Christmas with the excuse that others (point them out please.) are offended. Diversity is recognizing differences, not diminishing them to a common denominator by using Happy Holiday. Corporations and the media have no idea what diversity really is and therefore it is purely an excuse to remove recognition of Christmas.
People who don't celebrate anything can just ignore it all. Why should they care what it is called if they don't celebrate it anyway? They should be as offended with Happy Holiday as with Merry Christmas if they don't celebrate anything in the first place. Why should the Jews be offended with "Christmas tree" if they don't have a tree of their own in the first place? I don't hear anyone calling the Menorah a "candle holder" for fear it may offend Christians nor does anyone ever advertise to target Hanuakkah. I see Christmas commercials with trees and lights and presents but they never even mention Christmas. What is up with that? Purely an attempt to remove the idea of Christ to return it to original pagan traditions so they can still make money without acknowledging the Christian associations.
I thought the lab had a verbal component, but apparently not. In any case, good idea.
It isn't verbal, just not written. I don't know the exact details because I haven't taken it myself but I work with a CCIE. There is a troubleshooting lab that you must take which accompanies the written portion. This used to be setup such that you would setup the lab equipment for your personal test on day 1. Overnight they would screw it up and then the 2nd day you had to fix it. Now it is just one day and you don't set it up from the ground up (cabling, etc.) You have access to Cisco docs to do the lab but you are limited to 9 hours to do the lab portion. If you are spending all your time looking up some piece of info you won't come close to completing it and some of the tasks are cumulative. Read this for more info. They changed the format back in 2001. I don't see how anyone could really cheat on this part since you have to know how to configure the devices but maybe this interview is supposed to aid with minimizing the cheaters on the written portion. If you are cheating there though then I'd think you would have to cheat on the lab and if you don't need to cheat on the lab that you wouldn't have to on the written but I assume Cisco is seeing some trends that indicate cheating in some way.
I didn't know CCIE had issues with cheaters but maybe all cert exams are susceptible to it. I think if this works that maybe MS and other companies should take notice and think about using the idea for their own certs. Doing this could increase the value of the certs to companies and therefore to people who are thinking of taking them.
Medical discoveries like this one, by increasing the level of reproduction rates in stem cells by a factor of 100, remind me that eventually humanity will cure death. However, unlike that fateful society on that distant memory of a Star Trek episode, we have INFINITE stars and potential to flourish outside of our known universe, and therefore we should not fear immortality.
We won't cure death. We can't. We can't cure every disease that can kill us. New diseases will pop up (AIDS anyone?). Cancer prevalence is going higher it seems. You can't stop the normal aging process due to photons anyway. We are destined to die but remember it is only our earthly bodies which do so. I know I wouldn't want to stay on this planet, made wretched by evil people, any longer than I have to. Those who know they are going to a better place after Earth shouldn't fear death either. Why fear something that relieves you of all the bad things asociated with this planet? Moving to another planet doesn't relieve the good people of the evil ones. Ironically, even good people eventually settled in Australia.
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc>cacls hosts
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(ID)F
BUILTIN\Administrators:(ID)F
BUILTIN\Users:(ID)R
Far out. I'll slap the next person who tells me Unix is hard to use, if that's Microsoft's idea of user-friendliness.
Right. Because you were born with the knowledge to know that rw below is for the owner of the file, the middle r is for the group owning the file and the last r is for everyone else. Quit acting like Linux is easy just because you know it better. You aren't born with the knowledge of understanding Linux file permissions just as you aren't born knowing how to understand Windows ACLs. For that matter, at least Windows has ACLs compared to Linux in this example. Any Windows Administrator is going to know what BUILTIN\Users and BUILTIN\Administrators means as well as the hidden NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM UPN.
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
I know some people who work on the system which handles the background checks for firearms (handguns, long guns, etc.). Leading up to Christmas the background checks were coming in so fast (due to people buying guns and also getting permits I assume) that they were being overrun. Management personnel were having to take calls it was so bad. Now given, the fall/winter seasons are the busy season for firearm background checks but they were seeing at least a 20% increase in firearm purchases and therefore bg checks above the normal busy season numbers. I spoke with one of the supervisors of the system one day after work in November as we walked to our cars and his last comment to me was "it's not like Obama can take their guns away tomorrow". Don't be so paranoid.
Forgive the possibly stupid question, but since km/h is a measure of linear speed, is that saying that we're traveling at that speed or is the edge of the Milky Way moving that fast?
It means exactly what it says. Our Solar System is rotating at 965,600 km/h. We aren't at the edge of the Milky Way anyway as the artist's rendering on the article page shows so it isn't the latter. The "At that distance" phrase is referring to the Solar System's distance (28k light years) from the center of the galaxy. Since the Milky Way isn't being torn apart the outer edges of the galaxy are rotating faster than the inner core (outer edges have to move faster because they have more distance to travel) correspondingly to keep up with the inner core. This is similar to a CD in a CD drive. Since it is a solid material everything moves at the same time however the outer edges move at a rate that is faster than the inner edge. That is the angular velocity however that is being measured. You rotate it fast enough (as in an episode of Mythbusters) and the CD flies apart. I hope that makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
And, they were taken by the girls themselves. Who was being exploited here? Isn't that the point of the laws, to deal with the sick fucks who exploit children? Not to mention 15yo girls are *JAILBAIT* not CP. A law that can be used so easily to prosecute somebody for the wrong reasons needs to be abolished.
Whatever happened to people who didn't want everyone to see them naked and preferred to wait until they were at least out of high school before people of the opposite sex saw them naked? How young should we let this go? With younger and younger kids getting cell phones exactly what is the cut off point (if 14 and 15 isn't it) where we say to someone that they should be a little more responsible, a little less open with their bodies, and try to get it in their thick heads they don't need to be sending naked pics of themselves to begin with? What happened to society to cause 14 and 15 year old *girls* to *willingly* do this? I emphasize girls because guys are always willing to send naked pics. It's the women who don't like receiving them and now they seem to be more than willing to be the distributors.
Because AD is 'far more than LDAP and Kerberos,' Bartlett said, Samba 4 is not only about developing with Microsoft's customization of those protocols, it is also about moving the project beyond just providing an NT 4 compatible domain manager."
MS has not customized the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol as far as I know (they customized the schema though but everyone else does too except the OpenLDAP project) however I believe I heard a while back that they have made some changes to the Kerberos protocol. I just wanted to clear that up.
What was this tool you created called, is there a copy online anywhere? What's difficult about a Unix admin setting up a script. And you don't have to use the CLI for everything, you put it in a script and let the machine do it.
It doesn't matter because I didn't release my tool. It is functional and works for multiple directories but I never put enoug features into it though to be comfortable with releasing it. I've used it at work a few times though. The problem with the CLI is that someone must know LDAP in and out in order to write scripts and LDIF files when GUI tools are not available. I find it quicker to use the GUI even though I know LDAP pretty well. Unless I'm doing batch operations the GUI is better.
'These problems have been solved by using OpenLDAP and Samba TNG software'
I didn't see anywhere in that article how to setup the Windows clients to communicate with Samba as the provider of domain services. Since it was left out I assume it is as simple as adding the clients to the Samba domain just as if it were a DC and the Windows clients don't know any better?
"ADS hides replication from you (accessible through Sites and Services snap-in though)"
It really amazes me how MS releases a utility with most of the core components missing and then charges you more for the 'snapins'.
MS doesn't charge for the Sites and Services snap-in. In fact, the 3 snap-ins needed for ADS administration are available as soon as ADS is installed. They are also available in the Admin Tools Pack MSI so you can install them on workstations so you don't have to login to a server everytime to make changes. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. Many diagnostic tools are available as separate downloads in resource kits as well.
Not only will it not help them but it won't help car owners. People who have a 10-20 year old car usually do so because they don't have the money for a new one. Giving them less than $5k for it (probably not worth more than that anyway) is not going to be incentive enough for most I would think to help them get a car to replace the one they are giving up.
I agree with your statements regarding what ADS provides and what OpenLDAP does not. The fact that OpenLDAP gives you a backend and nothing else is one reason I did not recommend it to the submitter however your subject for your post is not correct. ADS *is* LDAP. It uses LDAP underneath just as any other directory server does on the market today. Many also can integrate with Kerberos just as ADS does. I hate when people call ADS "Active Directory" and then they refer to Sun's implementation as an "LDAP server" or whatever. The fact is ADS is as much LDAP as any other. MS has just added attributes to the schema to fit a Windows infrastructure but then again so has Sun for Solaris clients. The LDAP schema was meant to be extended and can even be extended by the administrators to add custom attributes and object classes for companies who want to integrate their products with it. MS is no different in what they did. It's their own implementation of it just as Sun has their implementation. If someone wants an unadulterated implementation of a directory server they should go for OpenLDAP but they will be sorry (if only due to lack of management tools).
I don't often recommend SUN products with the exception of Solaris but Sun Java System Directory Server Enterprise Edition has actually proven to be a very stable solution. I don't believe its open source but I believe it is free. There is also an identity synchronization tool that allows you to sync your LDAP to AD servers if needed. Handles multimaster replication between however many nodes flawlessly with very good performance in my experience. It'll run on Windows,Linux, or of course Solaris.
I much prefer the old Sun Directory Server to the new Java System Directory Server (SDS) even though SDS 5.2 still had issues. The new one is a step backwards in my opinion. You can't create POSIX accounts directory using the GUI; a POSIX Group object class is available in the list but not a POSIX account. For every POSIX account I have to creat an inetOrgPerson and modify it. It also won't let me deactivate or re-enable accounts using the GUI. I have to use CLI scripts (which don't work out of the box and had to be fixed) and to unlock accounts I have to reset the account password. I shouldn't have to do that. It also won't let me do anything with the operational attributes. They are strictly read-only, at least through the slow web GUI. I haven't attempted an ldapmodify command.
It is free if you don't want support but it isn't open source. I've found that 2 times over the last 8 months it has broken its own replication. I've had to go in to the web GUI and fix it. Also, being on Solaris is a pain in the ass. Their patch system is a mess and nonsensical to me (a Windows/Linux person). You can't tell whether you need a patch or not and Sun Java System requires a ton of patches whether or not they really affect any of the components you have installed. I have other gripes about how Solaris clients had to have the LDAP schema modified in SDS before they could authenticate but I won't get into that. We use Solaris 9 at work if you are curious.
The main contenders for this purpose seem to be Fedora Directory Server, OpenDS, and Apache Directory Server;
OpenLDAP is too plain and simple. It isn't user-friendly. There are no GUI tools that come with it although there are various tools people have made that you can use to manage it. I even created one myself as a senior project because it doesn't come with one and having to use the CLI commands for everything is just more trouble than it is worth when you want to get up and running quickly.
I haven't ever used Apache Directory Server so I can't speak to that but Fedora Directory Server comes from the Netscape Directory Server of yore. NDS went under and Sun Directory Server took its place. Netscape and Sun Directory Servers are basically the same thing, even the GUIs are the same except for name/logo changes here and there. FDS should be pretty good based on the NDS/SDS pedigree. OpenDS is new and runs using Java therefore it automatically requires more resources than the others which are built with C/C++. I'd let OpenDS mature a bit more before using it. Of the ones you mention I'd pick Fedora Directory Server.
But I have some questions. Do you plan to migrate clients over to a non-Windows OS? If not you'll need to investigate how to continue making Windows clients authenticate to a non-MS directory. It is possible to make this happen but past methods of doing so (a few years ago for me) have been kludgey at best. Windows likes to talk to ADS. If you migrate to Linux clients your job gets much easier because you don't have to worry about Windows SIDs and similar critical components of a Windows infrastructure.
Do you have people who know directory servers and understand LDAP? Be aware that ADS makes things easy for a Windows administrator. Even Sun Directory Server does not automatically enable replication when you have it installed on 2 servers. I highly doubt the other implementations you are looking at do the same. Therefore you will have to really understand how directory servers work underneath when working with these other implementations. You have to create replication agreements yourself and understand the underlying LDAP structure. ADS hides replication from you (accessible through Sites and Services snap-in though) until something breaks. The schema is hidden from you as well unless you need to access it (not even in the default list of MMC snap-ins but it can be added). Make sure you have people who can administer directory server installations, not just ADS installations, when you do this migration.
In case it helps for the future, Radio Shack carries Arctic Silver, 9.99 a tube. But I know it would be nice for a brick and mortar store to sell motherboards and CPUs like CompUSA used to do.
Creator doesn't imply any particular God either, it seems deliberately chosen to be ambiguous. 'Year of our Lord' is a common expression.
The point being that they could have very well left those things out of the text but they did not. It doesn't specify which God but the poing being they still believed in a religion with a higher power which created us. As far as being founded on secularism, this is evidence against that being wrong. It doesn't matter that it doesn't specify a Christian God.
Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
There is a difference between government controlling religion (such as enforcement or punishment for nonconformance) and government supporting the people's religion. Obviously not everyone in the "people" will have the same religion but there are no consequences for not conforming to the people's religion whether at the state or federal level. True integration occurs in Middle Eastern countries, not in the U.S. People need reminded of that all too often. The U.S. gov't tries to support the people's religion and it can do so (and has done so) without having a religion of its own that it tries to enforce on the people.
'Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.'
Countless Christians are tortured and killed in foreign countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, just for being Christian but this is rarely reported in the media. If you want to talk about tolerance toward religion then let's start there.
The treaty of Tripoli written in 1796 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
This could easily be interpreted (just as the 1st amendment is twisted, I mean interpreted) to mean that it isn't necessarily founded on the Christian religion but that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion at all. If it wasn't founded on *any* religion then why does "Creator" exist in the Declaration of Independence?
So while obviously many leaders were probably Christians and went to church, it seems clear that the founders were attempting to separate church and state, and were incredibly progressive in doing so.
Separating church from state and state from church are 2 different things. The founders did not want a repeat of European countries where the state defines what religion you must be a member of and punishes you for nonconformance. It is quite okay to have church integrated with the state and it is also quite okay for the state to support the people's religion just as long as those who are not members of that religion have the freedom to continue that choice without repercussions, otherwise that would be enforcing the people's religion and we don't want that.
At the present time, there are no repercussions. You can just as well walk down the street and see a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and look the other way without being arrested, jailed, fined, whatever. You can even go back home afterwards and worship Satan, or just as well pray to Satan on the lawn with the nativity scene behind you. You have that freedom. But don't take away the freedom for the People to be reminded of and comforted by their common religion by having the nativity scene removed. That is just a double standard. Nothing is taken away from you by having the nativity scene in place but you *are* taking something away from the People.
Which amendment to the constitution added "under god"?
"Creator" is, and always has been, in the Declaration of Independence and I don't think it is meant to refer to your parents. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." For people who are considered non-religious by secularists who want to make people think the U.S. is a secular country the Founding Fathers have an awful lot of religious references, as in more than 0, in the founding documents. Note that they were smart enough to not specify any certain religion be built into the country. That was one reason for leaving Europe in the first place. But they still held religious beliefs (and respected both those who did and did not share their views by not stifling them) and even the Capitol has been used for church services in recent times when Congress isn't in session. The Congress even authorized a church be built for them in 1800. Gov't buildings have been built with religion in mind too. It was done for the people, not for the gov't itself (e.g. In God We Trust displayed in various locations such as on the Speaker of the House's Rostrum in the House Chamber). Oh the horror!
I'm productive at work by not ever logging out or shutting down the machine unless absolutely necessary. I never shutdown my machine at home either unless absolutely necessary. At home I usually have to about once a month because PowerDVD stops playing DVDs and a reboot is the only way I've found to fix the problem. At work I currently have an uptime of about 60 days. Both work and home machines run WinXP. Why are you shutting your machine down every day? To reopen 5-10 tabs in FF, 2 IE (v6) windows, a couple My Computer windows, Notepad for notes, a couple Word docs, maybe a couple Excel files, Outlook (TBird at home) and currently a PowerPoint presentation, I'd lose more than just 10 seconds a day.
Seriously though, does anybody actually work only 40 hours a week?
For the latter half of last year I was working anywhere from 45-60 hours a week and around the October timeframe I hit 70 a couple times in a single week. Since the second week of December I am now working 40 hour weeks again and sometimes less than that (I fill in with personal time to still get a steady 40 hr worth paycheck). I'm a gov't contractor. The projects for the main contract typically end on fiscal year boundaries (FY ends September 30) and last year the contract itself was supposed to end on October 1 but scope creep on a few projects caused the contract to end in December which still required massive OT. With the next contract's projects' RFPs not coming out that fast so far, work has been back to normal (and yes, there is still work, like documentation). However I'm sure this isn't the case for all gov't Departments.
The gov't can procure products from foreign companies as long as the company's home country is a U.S. ally and has a U.S. satellite office. Because RIM is based in Canada this isn't an issue. Since someone mentioned how much R&D it could cost to develop a BlackBerry just for him I'll add that I wish they would design a BlackBerry that didn't have a camera for both gov't contractors and employees to use while at work. These idiot carriers/manufacturers think that everyone must have a camera and not everyone needs one nor wants one. I can't take my phone into work because it has a camera. With RIM making phones for business- people and now Obama is known to have one (as I know other gov't employees I work with have one issued by the gov't; they have older ones w/o a camera) it would be in RIM's best interest (and other manufacturers) to think of this segment of the market. Isn't the U.S. gov't the largest employer in the U.S.? Not every employee needs to have a non-camera phone but anyone in the DOD, NSA, and DOJ could probably take advantage of it. I know I could.
Actually, Sony buys the "guts" of their HD TVs from Samsung and just puts them in a slick case and slaps their logo in it. You can buy the exact same TV from Samsung without paying extra for the Sony brand.
I was just at Best Buy on Sunday. I looked at a lot of LCD TVs (they had very few plasmas I noticed). They had many in a row on 2 levels of shelves so I could easily compare about 8 all at once. I noticed the Sony KDL52W4100 had the best picture as far as color vibrance and contrast are concerned. Why wouldn't the Samsung and the Sony TVs be the same if what you say is true?
Now I'm happy to also give you some good news. You're probably not graduating until the summer. That's great. First of all, the economy will be just about to turn around (the media won't tell you, but they also didn't tell you one year ago that we were in a recession).
The government has to be the entity that says we are in a recession after 2 consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. There is nothing for the media to report if the gov't economists don't say anything. There is still the issue of why it took so long for them to say something though but it wasn't the media's fault in my opinion.
When someone wants money for a holiday they refuse to mention in their commercials then that offends me. It is hypocritical. There is no reason to diminish Christmas for the sake of making a feeble attempt at trying to recognize all the other things that could possibly be celebrated in the month of December. When people lie about the reason for *not* saying "Christmas" in their greetings and advertising is when I get offended because I know the real reason they are not saying "Christmas". You can't exactly recognize everything by not recognizing anything when you say "Happy Holidays".
Some people (especially school systems across the United States so I'll go with that example) use the excuse that they don't want to offend anyone by only saying "Merry Christmas" and removing all remnants of "Christmas" if it has anything to do with the school (e.g. kids now have a winter break not a Christmas break and winter plays now talk about global warming instead of Jesus around Christmas time). They do so without ever caring, or possibly intentionally knowing, that they are offending the people who celebrate Christmas. I guess it is not okay to offend the pagans who celebrate the solstice (or whatever they do) and who don't represent anything close to a sizable portion of the U.S. population but it is okay to offend Christians who make up a very large portion of the U.S. population. Using the 1st amendment in the case of the school systems for not mentioning Christmas (and by extension, Christ) is not even logical because celebrating the winter solstice is associated with the pagan religion. As long as it isn't the Christian religion it must be okay though.
If people would just admit the real reason for not mentioning Christmas I'd be happier but still offended. At least then they would finally stop being cowards and finally let their agendas be visible to everyone, including those who prefer to ignore bias against Christianity. People who are accused of being a conspiracy theorist would finally be vindicated. More people would probably fight it too which is why none of the organizations who are proponents of the bias are ever going to admit their true agendas.
So, essentially your reasoning is that it would be ludicrous for somebody to be offended by a simple, holiday-related sentiment offered in good spirit? Or at least, they shouldn't be nearly as offended by yours as you are by theirs?
Prove to me that "Happy Holiday" is so much better than "Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year". What is wrong with saying the name of the holiday to make it more personal? Why say anything at all if we aren't going to say the holiday name? You can be generic and non-personal by saying "Happy Holiday" but can you still say in good faith it is done in good spirit especially with the ulterior motive that they are doing it in a purposeful attempt to get around saying "Christmas"? How is that good spirit? What ever happened to the Christmas spirit? It has been lost, or maybe more appropriately, taken away by the PC crowd. Now we all celebrate winter solstice!! Yay!!! Bottom line is that no one has ever been reported of complaining about "Merry Christmas" to force so many corporations and the media (especialy the Associated Press in their articles) to change to "Happy Holidays" but many thousands or millions have complained to change things back. That's why Wal-Mart went back to mentioning "Christmas" in all their commercials. Maybe this non-religious viewpoint will help: If a company wants to make money off a holiday then they shouldn't so coward and try to be so politically correct to never say its name in their ads. Not acknowledging it by name but wanting to make 30-50% of your yearly revenue from it is hypocritical.
Which "holiday" are you referring to? Kwanzaa? Hanukkah? Christmas? Oh, sorry, were you not aware that there is more than one "holiday" that occurs this time of year? Or am I just being (sniff) "too pee see."
Were you not aware we have holidays all year but for some reason it is only during Christmastime when people want to avoid saying one of the holiday names, namely "Christmas"? Why isn't there an attempt to be politically correct any other time of year? Some people may be offended by Martin Luther King Jr and his speech content but his birthday as a holiday is still referred to by name instead of being lumped in with New Year's or as a standalone generic holiday. Some people even celebrate Halloween like it is an official holiday when it is not and companies spend a lot of money on Halloween advertising and actually call it by name. But yet they can't call Christmas by its name. Why the obvious bias? If they *still* have Christmas-themed commercials what is so bad about saying "Chrismas" *during* the commercial? They want the money but don't want to acknowledge the Christian religion.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging all the holidays (Hanuakkah and Christmas) at the end of the year but you can't expect to acknowledge them by saying "Happy Holidays". I don't see any Hanuakkah commercials either so if they were being truly diverse instead of just having a bias against Christmas then we should be seeing Hanukkah commercials from all the companies who say "Happy Holidays". Best Buy is the only company I know of that had a commercial referencing Hanukkah last year. I don't know if they had a Christmas version or not though. The year before I know they made every attempt to avoid "Christmas" in their commercials despite wanting the money from it. Hypocritical at the least and offensive at worst.
For the record I couldn't care less. I find my self wondering more and more each year why I am celebrating a holiday of a religion I don't even follow. (kids) We need a return to the root of our holidays. Christmas was a pagan year end celebration. Easter was a pagan holiday celebrating fertility. It fell in the spring as winter ended and new life sprouted. The Christians usurped these holidays as representing their beliefs and their christ.
I know at least 1 person who "celebrates" Christmas but not for the religious reasons which to me doesn't make any sense whatsoever but it does offend me. I guess to those people maybe Happy Holiday is just fine but to those who celebrate it for the right reasons it is offensive. Kwanzaa isn't a holiday and I can understand the Jewish people possibly being offended by most people saying Merry Christmas but most people celebrate Christmas compared to Hanukkah so the odds are in a person's favor of saying Merry Christmas to someone else and being correct. However the Jewish people have never complained; it is only the media and some corporations who are taking matters into their own hands to diminish Christmas with the excuse that others (point them out please.) are offended. Diversity is recognizing differences, not diminishing them to a common denominator by using Happy Holiday. Corporations and the media have no idea what diversity really is and therefore it is purely an excuse to remove recognition of Christmas.
People who don't celebrate anything can just ignore it all. Why should they care what it is called if they don't celebrate it anyway? They should be as offended with Happy Holiday as with Merry Christmas if they don't celebrate anything in the first place. Why should the Jews be offended with "Christmas tree" if they don't have a tree of their own in the first place? I don't hear anyone calling the Menorah a "candle holder" for fear it may offend Christians nor does anyone ever advertise to target Hanuakkah. I see Christmas commercials with trees and lights and presents but they never even mention Christmas. What is up with that? Purely an attempt to remove the idea of Christ to return it to original pagan traditions so they can still make money without acknowledging the Christian associations.
I thought the lab had a verbal component, but apparently not. In any case, good idea.
It isn't verbal, just not written. I don't know the exact details because I haven't taken it myself but I work with a CCIE. There is a troubleshooting lab that you must take which accompanies the written portion. This used to be setup such that you would setup the lab equipment for your personal test on day 1. Overnight they would screw it up and then the 2nd day you had to fix it. Now it is just one day and you don't set it up from the ground up (cabling, etc.) You have access to Cisco docs to do the lab but you are limited to 9 hours to do the lab portion. If you are spending all your time looking up some piece of info you won't come close to completing it and some of the tasks are cumulative. Read this for more info. They changed the format back in 2001. I don't see how anyone could really cheat on this part since you have to know how to configure the devices but maybe this interview is supposed to aid with minimizing the cheaters on the written portion. If you are cheating there though then I'd think you would have to cheat on the lab and if you don't need to cheat on the lab that you wouldn't have to on the written but I assume Cisco is seeing some trends that indicate cheating in some way.
I didn't know CCIE had issues with cheaters but maybe all cert exams are susceptible to it. I think if this works that maybe MS and other companies should take notice and think about using the idea for their own certs. Doing this could increase the value of the certs to companies and therefore to people who are thinking of taking them.
Medical discoveries like this one, by increasing the level of reproduction rates in stem cells by a factor of 100, remind me that eventually humanity will cure death. However, unlike that fateful society on that distant memory of a Star Trek episode, we have INFINITE stars and potential to flourish outside of our known universe, and therefore we should not fear immortality.
We won't cure death. We can't. We can't cure every disease that can kill us. New diseases will pop up (AIDS anyone?). Cancer prevalence is going higher it seems. You can't stop the normal aging process due to photons anyway. We are destined to die but remember it is only our earthly bodies which do so. I know I wouldn't want to stay on this planet, made wretched by evil people, any longer than I have to. Those who know they are going to a better place after Earth shouldn't fear death either. Why fear something that relieves you of all the bad things asociated with this planet? Moving to another planet doesn't relieve the good people of the evil ones. Ironically, even good people eventually settled in Australia.
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc>cacls hosts
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(ID)F
BUILTIN\Administrators:(ID)F
BUILTIN\Users:(ID)R
Far out. I'll slap the next person who tells me Unix is hard to use, if that's Microsoft's idea of user-friendliness.
Right. Because you were born with the knowledge to know that rw below is for the owner of the file, the middle r is for the group owning the file and the last r is for everyone else. Quit acting like Linux is easy just because you know it better. You aren't born with the knowledge of understanding Linux file permissions just as you aren't born knowing how to understand Windows ACLs. For that matter, at least Windows has ACLs compared to Linux in this example. Any Windows Administrator is going to know what BUILTIN\Users and BUILTIN\Administrators means as well as the hidden NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM UPN.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1061 2007-04-05 12:18 /etc/hosts
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
I know some people who work on the system which handles the background checks for firearms (handguns, long guns, etc.). Leading up to Christmas the background checks were coming in so fast (due to people buying guns and also getting permits I assume) that they were being overrun. Management personnel were having to take calls it was so bad. Now given, the fall/winter seasons are the busy season for firearm background checks but they were seeing at least a 20% increase in firearm purchases and therefore bg checks above the normal busy season numbers. I spoke with one of the supervisors of the system one day after work in November as we walked to our cars and his last comment to me was "it's not like Obama can take their guns away tomorrow". Don't be so paranoid.
Forgive the possibly stupid question, but since km/h is a measure of linear speed, is that saying that we're traveling at that speed or is the edge of the Milky Way moving that fast?
It means exactly what it says. Our Solar System is rotating at 965,600 km/h. We aren't at the edge of the Milky Way anyway as the artist's rendering on the article page shows so it isn't the latter. The "At that distance" phrase is referring to the Solar System's distance (28k light years) from the center of the galaxy. Since the Milky Way isn't being torn apart the outer edges of the galaxy are rotating faster than the inner core (outer edges have to move faster because they have more distance to travel) correspondingly to keep up with the inner core. This is similar to a CD in a CD drive. Since it is a solid material everything moves at the same time however the outer edges move at a rate that is faster than the inner edge. That is the angular velocity however that is being measured. You rotate it fast enough (as in an episode of Mythbusters) and the CD flies apart. I hope that makes sense.