you dont run any AV software , yet claim to not have any viri.
The plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'.
Please explain how you know you dont have ANY malware on your system ?
Can you really tell if someone/thing/program/site installed a keylogger ?
Can you be SURE that your system isnt part of a botnet ?
How can you tell me I do have infections? Why are you so sure I'm not fine? I use online scanners once a year, if that. Adware is installed but everytime I run it the worst it produces is a list of cookies. Otherwise nothing is detected.
You are making an assumption that your system is secure. Why ? Just because its speedy and it doesnt 'feel' like it has a virus ?
And you are doing the opposite without even knowing everything that goes on on my system. I know my system.
What credit card company do you use that REQUIRES IE ? Its not the card company that requires this ( all the majors support both IE and FF ) Most likely its your issuing bank.
its 2008 not 1998. Any company that continues to REQUIRE IE is just being stupid. Personally, I would drop that account and switch. Or at the very least not use it ( The card or the site )
It also works with Firefox if you must know which I used for a few days while IE was broke after installing XP Pro SP3 a couple weeks ago. I would keep my ass shut if I were you since you seem to only be talking out of that instead of your mouth (which can't be much better but it would be an improvement).
It's funny that for some reason people still need AV software. I don't run a firewall or AV software nor do I use Outlook, IE (except for 2 websites and one of those is my credit card company), or any other application that is prone to security problems. I do have a linksys router which provides some inherit firewall functionality but I haven't always had it (only in the last 3 years). I also am on a cable modem and my IP only changes a couple times a year if it changes at all. I don't receive stupid email from relatives either. I haven't ever had a virus/trojan/etc. despite my behavior. So what am I doing (or not doing) that allows me to not have to waste money on AV software that chews up precious resources and could be considered a virus themselves? What is this guy's woman doing that requires her to run AV software? That is the fundamental question. Is it just insurance? Sometimes I think insurance is overrated and a waste of time/money.
was featured in an article in Wired recently if anyone is interested. For the life of me I can't find the issue on Wired's website so I'll have to leave that as an exercise for the reader. I did find this blog entry though.
That took me by surprise. I was sure it was going to be because of the vast number of virtual particles constantly appearing and disappearing within the vacuum.
I am not a physicist but quantum fluctuations can also contribute to the problem I believe. It is quantum fluctuations that don't make space totally empty therefore they do have a reason to be discussed. Either way it does boil down to the Uncertainty Principle which prevent us from knowing 100% whether we have a true vacuum or not. And someone else said that maybe this only causes us to never know whether we have a true vacuum or not. I can't answer that but using logic it would seem that to be the case. Hower, using additional logic you run into a problem I think: As soon as you measure something you alter it so for all we know, we'll never see a true vacuum because we always cause it to disappear, therefore it doesn't (or can't) exist.
Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).
For any given particle, you can't know its exact position and velocity. Particles can never reach absolute zero because then you would be able to determine their position since you know their velocity would thus be zero given they have no energy by definition of absolute zero. An extension of that then is if you know a particle's velocity you will never be able to determine its position. If you can't determine its position you can't determine whether it is really outside a vacuum. You may be able to say it isn't in the middle of the volume which represents the vaccum but at the boundary you can't say for sure whether the particle is on the inside of the vacuum or outside. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.
Then I hear about these ridiculous trumped-up charges based on Islamic law. Yes, Middle-Eastern culture is fundamentally different than ours. No, we don't have a right to tell other nations how to run themselves socially.
It's funny you say that because many neighborhoods in the U.S. (specifically in Minnesota) are allowing shari'ah law to trump U.S. law when it comes to domestic disputes occuring between Islamic people. Gradually shari'ah law is becoming the new legal system. I believe England is seeing it happen more often than the U.S. We must be careful to not let the Islamic legal system supplant more sane legal systems. They may not be perfect but they are more civilized. We (as in the U.S. and Canada) already have our own legal system so we should not even consider acknowledging anyone in the u.S./Canada who attempts to use their legal system as an excuse for committing acts which are crimes under the U.S./Canadian legal systems. It is just another method by which the world will succumb to evil. Define evil however you want as many of us do anyway.
For what I'll use them for? Not very. Looks like they've got great stats for bulk storage, and any more demanding segments I can stripe and/or cache anyway (with memory prices where they are, it's not like you hit swap anymore).
You'd think so. Using Windows XP though it will use swap whether you like it or not. I haven't yet tried to configure my system with no swap at all (to force it to not be used) but with 2GB of RAM I never use it all up but yet my swap file is still used for some reason by Windows.
Yea, because we all backup 12TB of home data to an offsite location.
Yea, because we all have 12TB of home data to backup. If you do then I'm sure you also are being affected by Comcast's new throughput limit. I only have 2 RAIDs setup: 0 for the C: and 1 for my data. I don't do backups. It may come back to bite me in the ass or it may not. The RAID at least helps somewhat though. The mirror set is only 320GB though and it isn't full. If you have terabytes of data to backup then you probably have a professional system to manage it and to perform the actual backup. I've never had a true backup system through the 11 years I've had data. Up until 2006 I didn't have a RAID array setup either. 99.99% of home users can ignore this article, even me. If I simply restated what you already said in the rest of your post (that I didn't quote) I apologize.
since Yahoo already disables searching for other members using their search function at members.yahoo.com. They make you subscribe to Yahoo Personals if you really want to find someone (whether for a relationship or not). Their search function was hit and miss over the last few years and now I think it is off for good. They also have been raising their Yahoo Personals membership fees over the last year. Big surprise there.
It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to talk about their own religious beliefs. Hell, I'm a fervent supporter of Barack Obama, and he peppers many of his speeches with more religious references than any President since Carter.
But attempts to insert any specific religion into law or government are against the very founding principles of this nation.
No, what is against the founding principles is to force the public into a specific religion especially one that the government itself is a member. But having the government itself have a religion does not automatically force the individual citizens to comply unless laws are enacted which say that if you don't join the same religion then you will be punished. That is what the first immigrants ran away from and what they wanted to prevent happening again here in this land.
Who's advocating stopping someone else from practicing their religion?
Well you said you wanted to remove religion from the public sector. That obviously doesn't stop someone from practicing or supporting their religion in the private sector but by definition it does prevent them from doing so in public.
I say the Pledge of Allegiance proudly, in its form prior to being changed in the 1950s to include "under God."
That wasn't the question. The question was whether you would say it if you didn't feel you should actually pledge allegiance to this country thereby disagreeing with the pledge itself. If you disagree with the majority religion and want religion banned from public visibility then I would think you would be at least consistent and want the pledge banned for those who don't feel they should have to publically state they pledge allegiance to the flag. We wouldn't want someone to feel offended if they weren't happy with the U.S> gov't on any given day and were forced to pledge allegiance to the country or even listen to others who do. The other students would be offending the ears of the others. How dare they!
As a matter of fact we do. That's why I asked the question about the ACLU. These are some cases argued by that most secular of secularist organizations.
You conveniently list those situations in which the ACLU has actually supported religion but neglect to list anything (articles, court decisions, etc.) for situations in which the ACLU has yet to get involved but in which students' right to state/display/uphold anything about their religion is prohibited or, at best, questioned forcefully with threats of punishment. By sheer fact the ACLU got into a court battle also means your stories are easy to find but for those battles which don't get any media coverage (especially if it is about Christians) then you would be hard pressed to even know those problems even exist. One example being the murdering of Christian civilians in Iraq by Islamic extremists which I have yet to see in any media coverage on TV.
Other way around. Until you are forced to stop your religious practices, no harm done. Ruling that a judge may not place a monument of the Ten Commandments on public property, declaring it (inaccurately) to be the basis of United States law, conflicts with no one's ability to practice their religion. All it does is prevent the establishment of a de facto state religion.
Not quite. I'm already having my religion silenced in various forms due to your self-given right to not be offended by someone whose views differ from yours. You seem to have trouble believing the government is capable of helping citizens support their religion without actually enforcing any state religion. I don't know the details but I know that churches can get tax exemptions. Are you against those by chance, possibly using the rationale that you somehow feel that you must join a church which qualifies for those exemptions? Just because a gov't aids a religion does not mean it is enforcing that religion on others. I'm not sure ho
Not quite. We're trying to get religion out of the public sector.
Why? You believe it is okay to violate others' 1st amendment right in order to uphold your.....right not to be offended? I can't seem to find "the right not to be offended" in the country's founding documents though.
If you want to worship on your own terms, that's fine.
And if you don't want to then that's fine too but don't stop someone else from doing so just because you don't want to participate. Do you try to stop any activity that you don't plan on taking part in just so others can't do it? If not, why draw an arbitrary line at trying to stop other people from practicing their religion? Mind your own business. No one is forcing you to do something.
Did you know my high school had a student prayer circle every day at lunch, and some teachers even participated? Yeah, nobody bitched about it, because it was voluntary and student-led.
That's a wonder it was not shutdown merely because it would have been soooo easy for someone to accuse one of the teachers (or all of them) of actually leading it. Then again, at other schools, student speeches which have any hint of religion in them (well, Christianity) are not allowed at graduation ceremonies despite being student speeches, which is why I said before that those student prayer circles are lucky they weren't shutdown. In another school they would have been, unjustly so.
Compare that to mandatory homeroom "okay everyone stand up and recite the Lord's Prayer now" which was, rightly, banned.
So what do you do when they make you recite the Pledge of Allegiance (with or without the "under God" phrase? Depending on how much you like Congress and the rest of the government that day you may not feel very patriotic. Are you going to eventually want it banned? I've never heard of any school system requiring students to recite the Lord's Prayer let alone hear of anyone banning it. But actively forcing students to do something and supporting them when they want to do something (whether it is initiated by students or not) are 2 different things for which many secularists don't care to make the distinction. And therein lies the problem. Secularists don't want to make a distinction. They want all signs of religion stamped out which flies in the face of the 1st amendment. Your right to no religion stops at someone else's right to continue practicing their freedom of religion. And if anything, the fact that freedom of religion is explicitly in the founding documents trumps your freedom of *no* religion. Until you are actually forced to participate, as you stated above in your example (which was a good example), then no harm done. Using a blanket statement of wanting to get religion out of the public sector and acting upon it is a violation of the first amendment. Making sure no one is *forced* to do something however is something I support. Just feeling offending doesn't count. You must be explictly forced to participate in a religious activity for me to have any sympathy for your cause (because only then is your cause truly validated for the reasons you believe it to already be valid).
It's an interesting difference, though, isn't it? Islamic fundamentalists trying to get rid of public displays of pictures of Mohammed, trying to eliminate people reciting the Quran in products, and so on, and meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on. It's just a different kind of crazy.
And the secular progressives are also trying to get rid of public displays of the Christian religion, trying to get Christian teachings and quotes from the Bible banned everywhere (especially in schools), and so on. So based on the criteria above you should be agreeing with me when I say that behavior is the same kind of crazy as what you stated above. By the way, Christians don't do what you say to force it on others but they happen to believe in a little thing called freedom of religion which Islamic fundamentalist countries do not have. You are either a Muslim or you are dead in those countries (read about recent Christian murders in Iraq [forget the city but it is in the northern parts] over the last year which have ramped up recently). For those who think the U.S. is trying to enforce a state-sponsored religion by *allowing* Christians to practice their religious freedom they need to look at some of the Islam-based countries to see what true integration of church and state really is.
It seems violent, defensive reaction to blasphemous behavior against Muslims has had the reaction in the U.S. where various organizations (schools, companies, etc.) are actually afraid of offending Muslims and will go out of their way to make sure they don't do anything to offend them. However they continue to not care if Christians are offended. So I believe there are 2 possible reasons for that: 1) they *really* want to continue offending Christians because they just like doing it no matter the consequences or 2) they like doing it and realize Christians won't kill someone in response because they are a more peaceful people and therefore they can be taken advantage of easier.
There are no nerves in the brain so it doesn't hurt during brain surgery unless they mess with the pain center and then of course you'll wish you were somewhere else. Otherwise, for things like that, as someone else said, they have to keep you awake so that they can ensure you motor function, sight, hearing, etc. (whichever area is close to where they are working) are not damaged during the procedure.
At 70-75mph driving on WV interstate highways I get about 20-21 MPG.
My milage does vary. When driving 74 miles per hour (the legal speedlimit over here) I get 56.5 miles to the gallon (or, in Euro-measure: 1:24). Just let it sink in. I'm not driving a hybrid, just a regular car. Which is good, given the current price of fuel over here. 7.15 dollar per gallon.
Your regular car probably weighs at least 1500 pounds less than mine. I have the Mitsu Spyder (i.e. convertible) which needs extra bracing to keep sturdy. That adds weight to make the steel stronger. Every 1000 pounds can mean at least 1 MPG lost. As fueleconomy.org says "Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.". Obviously there are other major differences between your car and mine to allow your MPG to be doubled compared to mine. You probably have a V4 and half the horsepower as mine (V6, 260hp). I also live and work in WV which is very hilly. It isn't mountainous but there are lots of hills. You say you have a regular car but what is your definition of regular?
I assume you're driving the V6.
Because if you're only getting 24mpg in a 4-banger, you're doing it wrong.
V6 GT. It is rated at 17 and 27 MPG I believe. The GS is rated for something like 20 and 26 I think. I think in order to get 27 I'd have to drive probably 55mph throughout my entire time on a single tank of gas. I think a lot of cars' mileage are based on driving 55mph which is a remnant of the older 55 mph speed limit which was lifted in the mid-90s (if I recall correctly). Gas mileage doesn't come with a disclaimer like that as far as I know but at least manufacturers put on the dealer tags the cost of gasoline assumed when they tell you how much you should expect to spend each year on gas. FYI, their typical gasoline price for that calculation is about $2.80 a gallon, even on 2008 model year cars I saw on the lot just last week.
There are sweet spots for driving which is usually specific to the type of vehicle, the gearing, etc. so, to an extent, I'm sure the faster you go the better MPG you will see. But for my car, Mitsubishi Spyder, they recommend shifting into 6th at about 50mph. So basically my interstate driving is all in the top gear by far. At 70-75mph driving on WV interstate highways I get about 20-21 MPG. If I just drop my speed to 65mph everywhere I go during a tank of gas I can reach 24 MPG. I've consistently seen those results out of at least the last 3 or 4 tanks of gas over the last couple months. If I take a US Route (speed limit 55) for 90 minutes to visit my parents my MPG goes up even more for that period of time because I'm going even slower than my usual 65-75 mph. I don't drive too much slower than the posted speed limit (5mph as I state above) because I don't want to feel like I'm crawling but just dropping 5 mph makes a noticeable difference in the range I can achieve with my tank (17.7 gallons). YMMV.
I just tested the site with a search on "trusted computing". I tried it both with and without quotes. I was rather puzzled to see results featuring the Sarah Palin scandal and nationalreview ranting "Don't trust the liberal media". I was only able to search through part of the results before the site froze up - Slashdot effect I assume - but I couldn't find a single result actually addressing Trusted Computing. As near as I can tell it simply targeted the 'trust' fragment of the search term.
So what are you saying? You don't trust its computing prowess? You just found your "trusted computing" just not the way you thought you would and isn't that how we all view trusted computing? It represents itself in ways we don't expect nor like.
I think it would be better if Microsoft implemented something closer to sudo or su, but I think people would complain about that too.
They already have this and is at least in Windows XP and in Server 2003 (maybe in previous versions as well). It's called RunAs and it is enabled by using the Secondary Logon service. It doesn't have the granularity of sudo (a sudoers file) so it is more like a su. People haven't complained because it seems they don't even know it is there.
What file - well, that's not completely true, it gives you the file name but not the path!
What the file operation is (read? append? replace? delete?)
Anything that might help you make your decision
One problem is that when you turn on file system auditing in Windows it generates a ton of false positives because applications request higher level access than they really need thus setting of a failure audit. Applications need to be fundamentally changed to make the requested file operation be accurate when it is reported to the user.
My personal experience is that Nagios is probably the LEAST easy to use of any piece of software, period. I hope they changed it in a major way, because last time I tried to use it I was forced to dig through configuration files and learn syntax just to get the thing to see if some server was responding to pings.
I hope this isn't considered too off-topic but, to help your situation, have you looked at Hyperic HQ? It was previewed about a year ago in Linux Journal. We are using it at work (Enterprise edition) and paid for support but both non-enterprise and enterprise versions are open source and the non-enterprise edition is free. They charge by the # of agents you deploy. It can collect simple SNMP data or, using their Java-based agents, can collect even more metrics for operating systems. It works on Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OS X. It automatically detects services running on a system (IIS, Apache, WebLogic, etc.) and monitors their performance and status. Alerts can be created, it supports integration with a directory server (ADS, Sun Directory, etc.), provides the ability to assign roles to users and put devices into groups. And it is all free if you don't want support. There aren't even any imitations with the free version if I recall correctly. It can use it's own database or you can install a separate DB. About the only thing it doesn't do is give you a network map but considering it does everything else for you basically automatically (except some SNMP setup) it is worth it. Basic availability info is performed by the agents so you wouldn't even need SNMP for servers. Check it out.
There are multiple databases at the state level and, at the federal level, NCIC is the one that contains warrant information. Many times a request goes out from NCIC (and other similar systems at CJIS) and days or months go by without a state returning information to the system operators so they can update records. Requests go out to courts and DAs without timely responses. The accuracy of the federal databases are therefore held at the whim of the state agencies and their personnel. The feds make attempts to keep their databases up-to-date but without state support it isn't going to happen. There are many other federal databases however beyond NCIC which hold other types of data and whose personnel communicate with other federal level agencies to maintain accuracy (e.g. BATF) which do have their own problems.
F* you microsoft for destroying my liver, since alcohol seems to be the only proper way to deal with your shit on daily basis.
The Linux and OSX addiction are pretty good though. I can't liken it to anything illicit since I don't use non-prescription drugs and I don't drink much. Maybe they are as good as a $3k/hr hooker? nah..nothing compares to sex but RHEL is close.
Slashdot Mirror
you dont run any AV software , yet claim to not have any viri.
The plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'.
Please explain how you know you dont have ANY malware on your system ? Can you really tell if someone/thing/program/site installed a keylogger ? Can you be SURE that your system isnt part of a botnet ?
How can you tell me I do have infections? Why are you so sure I'm not fine? I use online scanners once a year, if that. Adware is installed but everytime I run it the worst it produces is a list of cookies. Otherwise nothing is detected.
You are making an assumption that your system is secure. Why ? Just because its speedy and it doesnt 'feel' like it has a virus ?
And you are doing the opposite without even knowing everything that goes on on my system. I know my system.
What credit card company do you use that REQUIRES IE ? Its not the card company that requires this ( all the majors support both IE and FF ) Most likely its your issuing bank. its 2008 not 1998. Any company that continues to REQUIRE IE is just being stupid. Personally, I would drop that account and switch. Or at the very least not use it ( The card or the site )
It also works with Firefox if you must know which I used for a few days while IE was broke after installing XP Pro SP3 a couple weeks ago. I would keep my ass shut if I were you since you seem to only be talking out of that instead of your mouth (which can't be much better but it would be an improvement).
It's funny that for some reason people still need AV software. I don't run a firewall or AV software nor do I use Outlook, IE (except for 2 websites and one of those is my credit card company), or any other application that is prone to security problems. I do have a linksys router which provides some inherit firewall functionality but I haven't always had it (only in the last 3 years). I also am on a cable modem and my IP only changes a couple times a year if it changes at all. I don't receive stupid email from relatives either. I haven't ever had a virus/trojan/etc. despite my behavior. So what am I doing (or not doing) that allows me to not have to waste money on AV software that chews up precious resources and could be considered a virus themselves? What is this guy's woman doing that requires her to run AV software? That is the fundamental question. Is it just insurance? Sometimes I think insurance is overrated and a waste of time/money.
was featured in an article in Wired recently if anyone is interested. For the life of me I can't find the issue on Wired's website so I'll have to leave that as an exercise for the reader. I did find this blog entry though.
I'd name the car Vista if I were him. Oh the irony.
That took me by surprise. I was sure it was going to be because of the vast number of virtual particles constantly appearing and disappearing within the vacuum.
I am not a physicist but quantum fluctuations can also contribute to the problem I believe. It is quantum fluctuations that don't make space totally empty therefore they do have a reason to be discussed. Either way it does boil down to the Uncertainty Principle which prevent us from knowing 100% whether we have a true vacuum or not. And someone else said that maybe this only causes us to never know whether we have a true vacuum or not. I can't answer that but using logic it would seem that to be the case. Hower, using additional logic you run into a problem I think: As soon as you measure something you alter it so for all we know, we'll never see a true vacuum because we always cause it to disappear, therefore it doesn't (or can't) exist.
Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).
For any given particle, you can't know its exact position and velocity. Particles can never reach absolute zero because then you would be able to determine their position since you know their velocity would thus be zero given they have no energy by definition of absolute zero. An extension of that then is if you know a particle's velocity you will never be able to determine its position. If you can't determine its position you can't determine whether it is really outside a vacuum. You may be able to say it isn't in the middle of the volume which represents the vaccum but at the boundary you can't say for sure whether the particle is on the inside of the vacuum or outside. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.
Then I hear about these ridiculous trumped-up charges based on Islamic law. Yes, Middle-Eastern culture is fundamentally different than ours. No, we don't have a right to tell other nations how to run themselves socially.
It's funny you say that because many neighborhoods in the U.S. (specifically in Minnesota) are allowing shari'ah law to trump U.S. law when it comes to domestic disputes occuring between Islamic people. Gradually shari'ah law is becoming the new legal system. I believe England is seeing it happen more often than the U.S. We must be careful to not let the Islamic legal system supplant more sane legal systems. They may not be perfect but they are more civilized. We (as in the U.S. and Canada) already have our own legal system so we should not even consider acknowledging anyone in the u.S./Canada who attempts to use their legal system as an excuse for committing acts which are crimes under the U.S./Canadian legal systems. It is just another method by which the world will succumb to evil. Define evil however you want as many of us do anyway.
For what I'll use them for? Not very. Looks like they've got great stats for bulk storage, and any more demanding segments I can stripe and/or cache anyway (with memory prices where they are, it's not like you hit swap anymore).
You'd think so. Using Windows XP though it will use swap whether you like it or not. I haven't yet tried to configure my system with no swap at all (to force it to not be used) but with 2GB of RAM I never use it all up but yet my swap file is still used for some reason by Windows.
Yea, because we all backup 12TB of home data to an offsite location.
Yea, because we all have 12TB of home data to backup. If you do then I'm sure you also are being affected by Comcast's new throughput limit. I only have 2 RAIDs setup: 0 for the C: and 1 for my data. I don't do backups. It may come back to bite me in the ass or it may not. The RAID at least helps somewhat though. The mirror set is only 320GB though and it isn't full. If you have terabytes of data to backup then you probably have a professional system to manage it and to perform the actual backup. I've never had a true backup system through the 11 years I've had data. Up until 2006 I didn't have a RAID array setup either. 99.99% of home users can ignore this article, even me. If I simply restated what you already said in the rest of your post (that I didn't quote) I apologize.
since Yahoo already disables searching for other members using their search function at members.yahoo.com. They make you subscribe to Yahoo Personals if you really want to find someone (whether for a relationship or not). Their search function was hit and miss over the last few years and now I think it is off for good. They also have been raising their Yahoo Personals membership fees over the last year. Big surprise there.
It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to talk about their own religious beliefs. Hell, I'm a fervent supporter of Barack Obama, and he peppers many of his speeches with more religious references than any President since Carter. But attempts to insert any specific religion into law or government are against the very founding principles of this nation.
No, what is against the founding principles is to force the public into a specific religion especially one that the government itself is a member. But having the government itself have a religion does not automatically force the individual citizens to comply unless laws are enacted which say that if you don't join the same religion then you will be punished. That is what the first immigrants ran away from and what they wanted to prevent happening again here in this land.
Who's advocating stopping someone else from practicing their religion?
Well you said you wanted to remove religion from the public sector. That obviously doesn't stop someone from practicing or supporting their religion in the private sector but by definition it does prevent them from doing so in public.
I say the Pledge of Allegiance proudly, in its form prior to being changed in the 1950s to include "under God."
That wasn't the question. The question was whether you would say it if you didn't feel you should actually pledge allegiance to this country thereby disagreeing with the pledge itself. If you disagree with the majority religion and want religion banned from public visibility then I would think you would be at least consistent and want the pledge banned for those who don't feel they should have to publically state they pledge allegiance to the flag. We wouldn't want someone to feel offended if they weren't happy with the U.S> gov't on any given day and were forced to pledge allegiance to the country or even listen to others who do. The other students would be offending the ears of the others. How dare they!
As a matter of fact we do. That's why I asked the question about the ACLU. These are some cases argued by that most secular of secularist organizations.
You conveniently list those situations in which the ACLU has actually supported religion but neglect to list anything (articles, court decisions, etc.) for situations in which the ACLU has yet to get involved but in which students' right to state/display/uphold anything about their religion is prohibited or, at best, questioned forcefully with threats of punishment. By sheer fact the ACLU got into a court battle also means your stories are easy to find but for those battles which don't get any media coverage (especially if it is about Christians) then you would be hard pressed to even know those problems even exist. One example being the murdering of Christian civilians in Iraq by Islamic extremists which I have yet to see in any media coverage on TV.
Other way around. Until you are forced to stop your religious practices, no harm done. Ruling that a judge may not place a monument of the Ten Commandments on public property, declaring it (inaccurately) to be the basis of United States law, conflicts with no one's ability to practice their religion. All it does is prevent the establishment of a de facto state religion.
Not quite. I'm already having my religion silenced in various forms due to your self-given right to not be offended by someone whose views differ from yours. You seem to have trouble believing the government is capable of helping citizens support their religion without actually enforcing any state religion. I don't know the details but I know that churches can get tax exemptions. Are you against those by chance, possibly using the rationale that you somehow feel that you must join a church which qualifies for those exemptions? Just because a gov't aids a religion does not mean it is enforcing that religion on others. I'm not sure ho
Not quite. We're trying to get religion out of the public sector.
Why? You believe it is okay to violate others' 1st amendment right in order to uphold your.....right not to be offended? I can't seem to find "the right not to be offended" in the country's founding documents though.
If you want to worship on your own terms, that's fine.
And if you don't want to then that's fine too but don't stop someone else from doing so just because you don't want to participate. Do you try to stop any activity that you don't plan on taking part in just so others can't do it? If not, why draw an arbitrary line at trying to stop other people from practicing their religion? Mind your own business. No one is forcing you to do something.
Did you know my high school had a student prayer circle every day at lunch, and some teachers even participated? Yeah, nobody bitched about it, because it was voluntary and student-led.
That's a wonder it was not shutdown merely because it would have been soooo easy for someone to accuse one of the teachers (or all of them) of actually leading it. Then again, at other schools, student speeches which have any hint of religion in them (well, Christianity) are not allowed at graduation ceremonies despite being student speeches, which is why I said before that those student prayer circles are lucky they weren't shutdown. In another school they would have been, unjustly so.
Compare that to mandatory homeroom "okay everyone stand up and recite the Lord's Prayer now" which was, rightly, banned.
So what do you do when they make you recite the Pledge of Allegiance (with or without the "under God" phrase? Depending on how much you like Congress and the rest of the government that day you may not feel very patriotic. Are you going to eventually want it banned? I've never heard of any school system requiring students to recite the Lord's Prayer let alone hear of anyone banning it. But actively forcing students to do something and supporting them when they want to do something (whether it is initiated by students or not) are 2 different things for which many secularists don't care to make the distinction. And therein lies the problem. Secularists don't want to make a distinction. They want all signs of religion stamped out which flies in the face of the 1st amendment. Your right to no religion stops at someone else's right to continue practicing their freedom of religion. And if anything, the fact that freedom of religion is explicitly in the founding documents trumps your freedom of *no* religion. Until you are actually forced to participate, as you stated above in your example (which was a good example), then no harm done. Using a blanket statement of wanting to get religion out of the public sector and acting upon it is a violation of the first amendment. Making sure no one is *forced* to do something however is something I support. Just feeling offending doesn't count. You must be explictly forced to participate in a religious activity for me to have any sympathy for your cause (because only then is your cause truly validated for the reasons you believe it to already be valid).
It's an interesting difference, though, isn't it? Islamic fundamentalists trying to get rid of public displays of pictures of Mohammed, trying to eliminate people reciting the Quran in products, and so on, and meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on. It's just a different kind of crazy.
And the secular progressives are also trying to get rid of public displays of the Christian religion, trying to get Christian teachings and quotes from the Bible banned everywhere (especially in schools), and so on. So based on the criteria above you should be agreeing with me when I say that behavior is the same kind of crazy as what you stated above. By the way, Christians don't do what you say to force it on others but they happen to believe in a little thing called freedom of religion which Islamic fundamentalist countries do not have. You are either a Muslim or you are dead in those countries (read about recent Christian murders in Iraq [forget the city but it is in the northern parts] over the last year which have ramped up recently). For those who think the U.S. is trying to enforce a state-sponsored religion by *allowing* Christians to practice their religious freedom they need to look at some of the Islam-based countries to see what true integration of church and state really is.
It seems violent, defensive reaction to blasphemous behavior against Muslims has had the reaction in the U.S. where various organizations (schools, companies, etc.) are actually afraid of offending Muslims and will go out of their way to make sure they don't do anything to offend them. However they continue to not care if Christians are offended. So I believe there are 2 possible reasons for that: 1) they *really* want to continue offending Christians because they just like doing it no matter the consequences or 2) they like doing it and realize Christians won't kill someone in response because they are a more peaceful people and therefore they can be taken advantage of easier.
There are no nerves in the brain so it doesn't hurt during brain surgery unless they mess with the pain center and then of course you'll wish you were somewhere else. Otherwise, for things like that, as someone else said, they have to keep you awake so that they can ensure you motor function, sight, hearing, etc. (whichever area is close to where they are working) are not damaged during the procedure.
At 70-75mph driving on WV interstate highways I get about 20-21 MPG.
My milage does vary. When driving 74 miles per hour (the legal speedlimit over here) I get 56.5 miles to the gallon (or, in Euro-measure: 1:24). Just let it sink in. I'm not driving a hybrid, just a regular car. Which is good, given the current price of fuel over here. 7.15 dollar per gallon.
Your regular car probably weighs at least 1500 pounds less than mine. I have the Mitsu Spyder (i.e. convertible) which needs extra bracing to keep sturdy. That adds weight to make the steel stronger. Every 1000 pounds can mean at least 1 MPG lost. As fueleconomy.org says "Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.". Obviously there are other major differences between your car and mine to allow your MPG to be doubled compared to mine. You probably have a V4 and half the horsepower as mine (V6, 260hp). I also live and work in WV which is very hilly. It isn't mountainous but there are lots of hills. You say you have a regular car but what is your definition of regular?
I assume you're driving the V6. Because if you're only getting 24mpg in a 4-banger, you're doing it wrong.
V6 GT. It is rated at 17 and 27 MPG I believe. The GS is rated for something like 20 and 26 I think. I think in order to get 27 I'd have to drive probably 55mph throughout my entire time on a single tank of gas. I think a lot of cars' mileage are based on driving 55mph which is a remnant of the older 55 mph speed limit which was lifted in the mid-90s (if I recall correctly). Gas mileage doesn't come with a disclaimer like that as far as I know but at least manufacturers put on the dealer tags the cost of gasoline assumed when they tell you how much you should expect to spend each year on gas. FYI, their typical gasoline price for that calculation is about $2.80 a gallon, even on 2008 model year cars I saw on the lot just last week.
There are sweet spots for driving which is usually specific to the type of vehicle, the gearing, etc. so, to an extent, I'm sure the faster you go the better MPG you will see. But for my car, Mitsubishi Spyder, they recommend shifting into 6th at about 50mph. So basically my interstate driving is all in the top gear by far. At 70-75mph driving on WV interstate highways I get about 20-21 MPG. If I just drop my speed to 65mph everywhere I go during a tank of gas I can reach 24 MPG. I've consistently seen those results out of at least the last 3 or 4 tanks of gas over the last couple months. If I take a US Route (speed limit 55) for 90 minutes to visit my parents my MPG goes up even more for that period of time because I'm going even slower than my usual 65-75 mph. I don't drive too much slower than the posted speed limit (5mph as I state above) because I don't want to feel like I'm crawling but just dropping 5 mph makes a noticeable difference in the range I can achieve with my tank (17.7 gallons). YMMV.
I just tested the site with a search on "trusted computing". I tried it both with and without quotes. I was rather puzzled to see results featuring the Sarah Palin scandal and nationalreview ranting "Don't trust the liberal media". I was only able to search through part of the results before the site froze up - Slashdot effect I assume - but I couldn't find a single result actually addressing Trusted Computing. As near as I can tell it simply targeted the 'trust' fragment of the search term.
So what are you saying? You don't trust its computing prowess? You just found your "trusted computing" just not the way you thought you would and isn't that how we all view trusted computing? It represents itself in ways we don't expect nor like.
I think it would be better if Microsoft implemented something closer to sudo or su, but I think people would complain about that too.
They already have this and is at least in Windows XP and in Server 2003 (maybe in previous versions as well). It's called RunAs and it is enabled by using the Secondary Logon service. It doesn't have the granularity of sudo (a sudoers file) so it is more like a su. People haven't complained because it seems they don't even know it is there.
What file - well, that's not completely true, it gives you the file name but not the path! What the file operation is (read? append? replace? delete?) Anything that might help you make your decision
One problem is that when you turn on file system auditing in Windows it generates a ton of false positives because applications request higher level access than they really need thus setting of a failure audit. Applications need to be fundamentally changed to make the requested file operation be accurate when it is reported to the user.
My personal experience is that Nagios is probably the LEAST easy to use of any piece of software, period. I hope they changed it in a major way, because last time I tried to use it I was forced to dig through configuration files and learn syntax just to get the thing to see if some server was responding to pings.
I hope this isn't considered too off-topic but, to help your situation, have you looked at Hyperic HQ? It was previewed about a year ago in Linux Journal. We are using it at work (Enterprise edition) and paid for support but both non-enterprise and enterprise versions are open source and the non-enterprise edition is free. They charge by the # of agents you deploy. It can collect simple SNMP data or, using their Java-based agents, can collect even more metrics for operating systems. It works on Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OS X. It automatically detects services running on a system (IIS, Apache, WebLogic, etc.) and monitors their performance and status. Alerts can be created, it supports integration with a directory server (ADS, Sun Directory, etc.), provides the ability to assign roles to users and put devices into groups. And it is all free if you don't want support. There aren't even any imitations with the free version if I recall correctly. It can use it's own database or you can install a separate DB. About the only thing it doesn't do is give you a network map but considering it does everything else for you basically automatically (except some SNMP setup) it is worth it. Basic availability info is performed by the agents so you wouldn't even need SNMP for servers. Check it out.
There are multiple databases at the state level and, at the federal level, NCIC is the one that contains warrant information. Many times a request goes out from NCIC (and other similar systems at CJIS) and days or months go by without a state returning information to the system operators so they can update records. Requests go out to courts and DAs without timely responses. The accuracy of the federal databases are therefore held at the whim of the state agencies and their personnel. The feds make attempts to keep their databases up-to-date but without state support it isn't going to happen. There are many other federal databases however beyond NCIC which hold other types of data and whose personnel communicate with other federal level agencies to maintain accuracy (e.g. BATF) which do have their own problems.
As a followup to this I'll say that the November issue of Linux Journal (I received it today) has an interview with Doctorow.
No idea. 2.7 doesn't even officially exist yet.
F* you microsoft for destroying my liver, since alcohol seems to be the only proper way to deal with your shit on daily basis.
The Linux and OSX addiction are pretty good though. I can't liken it to anything illicit since I don't use non-prescription drugs and I don't drink much. Maybe they are as good as a $3k/hr hooker? nah..nothing compares to sex but RHEL is close.