If we examine your scenario a bit further...
Libyan has a nuclear bomb, and manage to smuggle it into NY and detonate it.
Will the US President nuke Tripoli? I don't think so. The US has enough conventional stuff to take out Libya without the PR and guilt of nuclear weapons; if nothing else, I wonder if the world will ever believe the intelligence community regarding 'reasons to invade a country' again...
That said, I have a hard time imagining a situation in which the US and Western countries should give up the nuclear option.
Maybe I picked a bad country for the scenario. Replace Libya with Russia, China, or North Korea.
It would be difficult to make sure the respective countries had removed all their nukes. And all it would take is one threatening to use it against us. We may not be able to stop them.
Our retaliatory efforts could be significantly impacted by a small number of nukes.
It boils down to time. If Russia could launch nukes and hit the US in 30 minutes (I have no clue how long it would take a nuke to get here.), but it takes us several days to mount an assualt...well, we could very well be dead before we could attack them back.
Right now, it would take roughly the same amount of time for Russia to hit us as it would for the US to hit them--and we both know it would be suicide to launch because of roughly equal outcomes on both sides.
You're kidding right? Chaney was the one who engineered most of what Bush is so hated for.
From the liberal point of view, that must mean Cheney is responsible for engineering the removal of the evil dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq and installing democracy.
From the conservative point of view, that must mean he's responsible for leaving our border with Mexico wide open...
That's a one side argument though. You are assuming that the one nation left with a nuke isn't going to have any resistance deploying it.
I have a gun. You do not. I want to kill you.
Go ahead. Resist.
What good is having the most powerful weapon if you can't even get it out of your own country? If they fired off a nuke missile, it would get shot down before it even had a chance to blow up any neighboring country.
It would be so wonderful if we had a system that could detect and stop a nuke before it impacted another country....or detected someone with a suitcase nuke...or a missile launched from 10 miles off our coast...or flown in by plane, etc...
The point is, we can't get rid of all the nukes. We don't know how many there are, and who has all of them.
The US--for example, probably won't get rid of all it's nukes until Russia does. And Russia won't get rid of their nukes until the US does. Stalemate.
It's not about having the most powerful weapon, it's about having the most powerful defense as it renders all offense useless during such times.
No one has an unfailable defense system. That's why the US didn't tell Russia "go ahead--nuke us. We'll stop it."
A country with an elite military force coming into your country will do a lot more damage than the nuke missiles you fire back at them if they can't even reach their target
Which countries have nukes, but are incapable of launching them? Which countries have nukes but are unable to get them into Mexico and across our unsecured border?
Basically, McCain was trying to win the vote of two completely different bases that didn't like eachother's policies. By wining one base, he'd lose the other. But that is to be expected when you've got such a polarizing figure leading your party for eight years.
But now we've drifted so I'm done with this!
I agree--but even with Palin being the reason most republicans were voting for McCain, she still had no real power being 1st in line for the presidency. It doesn't explain why everyone compares Obama to Palin as if she were the president.
Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.
FBI warrant application form:
Justify your search and/or seizure under Constitutional amendment four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.
Don't want interlopers driving through your community? Make it gated and pay for your own maintenance instead of expecting the local government to take care of it for you.
Exactly. And the dude quoted is the biggest retard:
If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike
Try replacing 'houses' with 'pictures' and 'strike' with 'rape' to get an idea of how idiotic that line of thinking sounds. If our pictures are all over Google, it's an invitation for more criminals to rape.
So; you ran daily updates on your system and had uptime measured in years? How did you manage to patch/update your kernel? Did you apply those patches/updates without rebooting? How?
From your post, you sound like the epitome of an arrogant Linux user who throws half-truths around while looking down your nose at everyone who isn't just like you. When you use that tone, do you expect people to actually listen to you or are you just trolling for an argument? Sheesh.
The last kernel update for Ubuntu was 1/29/2009 and dealt with:
1. A *local* user attacking the ATM subsystem to cause a denial of service attack. (Who cares about a local user on my laptop or my servers--none of which use ATM)
2. A *local* attacker could exploit inotify to crash the system. (Once again, I'm not going to exploit my own personal laptop, and my servers have only root access. Might suck for a computer lab. A student could crash their own computer--yikes).
3. Memory exhaustion by a local attacker using sendmsg. (Same as above--I'm not going to exploit my servers or laptop.)
4. A RISC-based attack. (Running x86 hardware everywhere)
5. ATA timeout issue--*local* DOS. (Same answers are before)
6. And lastly, another LOCAL attack with the ib700 watchdog timer. Another module I don't use.
So in response--we're not arrogant linux users. We're not affected by most of the obscure updates. We simply install the updates, and in a few years when the machines are rebooted, the patched files are running.
In the Windows world, you end up with a Solitaire bug that lets you put Red Queen on Red King and the for some stupid reason the kernel needs to be patched and the box rebooted.
Yes. Vista is rock solid on solid hardware. Seriously. Vista is as reliable as Linux. Some people wreck their vista installation, some people wreck their Linux installation.
I have two identical servers. One of them has over 2 years uptime. The other one had 18 days, but was just rebooted a few minutes ago due to Windows updates. Care to guess which one is running Linux?
Since HTTP 1.1 sends the requested hostname along with the path (it's how a server can offer up multiple websites from one IP address), your proposal, serious though it isn't, wouldn't actually save bandwidth.
I noticed my screwup a few seconds after I posted. I was hoping no one else would.
Openness implies lower barriers to entry. If they control the technology, they control the admission price. If you want to play on our 'cloud' then it's going to cost a CAL.
If Microsoft were a country, they'd be very wealthy. I believe the exchange rate is $1.00EUC to ~$85.00USD. (EUC - Exchange User Cal)
This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."
In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.
How did life start on earth? I've heard a lot of different 'non-God' views--lightning strike, perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo', etc... But no one seems to be able to reduce the problem further. What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang, etc...
Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".
In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.
The same can be said somewhat of religion. If God created the heavens and the earth, what created God?
Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.
I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.
Unfortunately it goes both ways. Take the global warming debate for instance. Some people are flat out certain the oceans will be boiling in 10 years. Others have debunked that claim. And yet others have debunked the debunkers. Hell--I remember when carbon dating was considered absolute proof--then they figured out they were off by quite and bit and had to re-estimate everything again.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.
Do not use safe mode. Boot from a LiveCD and then check all the signatures of autorun files. Microsoft programs are signed with Microsoft key.
Let me fix this for you: "Boot from a LiveCD and then check all the signatures of autorun files. Most Microsoft programs are signed with Microsoft [sic] key.
For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.
And the point I am making is that schools have already been doing that for years.
For example, affirmative action.
If you let someone into the school and graduate them not based on their skill, but their skin color--well, you're degree is worthless.
What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?
And I would not hire a pottery specialist either, sorry.
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
Slashdot Mirror
If we examine your scenario a bit further... Libyan has a nuclear bomb, and manage to smuggle it into NY and detonate it. Will the US President nuke Tripoli? I don't think so. The US has enough conventional stuff to take out Libya without the PR and guilt of nuclear weapons; if nothing else, I wonder if the world will ever believe the intelligence community regarding 'reasons to invade a country' again... That said, I have a hard time imagining a situation in which the US and Western countries should give up the nuclear option.
Maybe I picked a bad country for the scenario. Replace Libya with Russia, China, or North Korea.
It would be difficult to make sure the respective countries had removed all their nukes. And all it would take is one threatening to use it against us. We may not be able to stop them.
Our retaliatory efforts could be significantly impacted by a small number of nukes.
It boils down to time. If Russia could launch nukes and hit the US in 30 minutes (I have no clue how long it would take a nuke to get here.), but it takes us several days to mount an assualt...well, we could very well be dead before we could attack them back.
Right now, it would take roughly the same amount of time for Russia to hit us as it would for the US to hit them--and we both know it would be suicide to launch because of roughly equal outcomes on both sides.
Oh, he gave a small portion of the money he reaped from war profiteering to charity. That makes everything ok I guess.
Someone has to own a company that builds military equipment, weapons and vehicles.
When Iraq has 50,000 Starbucks coffee joints, are you going to call the CEO of Starbucks a war profiteer?
Cheney is the only reason no one took GW Bush out. Because nobody on the left or the right or the fringe wanted that evil SOB in charge.
Right. That's the evil SOB that gave more to charities in one year than I would earn if I lived to be 200. That bastard.
You're kidding right? Chaney was the one who engineered most of what Bush is so hated for.
From the liberal point of view, that must mean Cheney is responsible for engineering the removal of the evil dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq and installing democracy.
From the conservative point of view, that must mean he's responsible for leaving our border with Mexico wide open...
That's a one side argument though. You are assuming that the one nation left with a nuke isn't going to have any resistance deploying it.
I have a gun. You do not. I want to kill you.
Go ahead. Resist.
What good is having the most powerful weapon if you can't even get it out of your own country? If they fired off a nuke missile, it would get shot down before it even had a chance to blow up any neighboring country.
It would be so wonderful if we had a system that could detect and stop a nuke before it impacted another country. ...or detected someone with a suitcase nuke...or a missile launched from 10 miles off our coast...or flown in by plane, etc...
The point is, we can't get rid of all the nukes. We don't know how many there are, and who has all of them.
The US--for example, probably won't get rid of all it's nukes until Russia does. And Russia won't get rid of their nukes until the US does. Stalemate.
It's not about having the most powerful weapon, it's about having the most powerful defense as it renders all offense useless during such times.
No one has an unfailable defense system. That's why the US didn't tell Russia "go ahead--nuke us. We'll stop it."
A country with an elite military force coming into your country will do a lot more damage than the nuke missiles you fire back at them if they can't even reach their target
Which countries have nukes, but are incapable of launching them? Which countries have nukes but are unable to get them into Mexico and across our unsecured border?
Right, cause we all know Cheney just sat around all day waiting for Bush to croak.
Nice snark. What did he do exactly?
Basically, McCain was trying to win the vote of two completely different bases that didn't like eachother's policies. By wining one base, he'd lose the other. But that is to be expected when you've got such a polarizing figure leading your party for eight years.
But now we've drifted so I'm done with this!
I agree--but even with Palin being the reason most republicans were voting for McCain, she still had no real power being 1st in line for the presidency. It doesn't explain why everyone compares Obama to Palin as if she were the president.
Surely Sarah Palin would have set things straight though, right? I'm sure she can handle the nuclear launch codes. Her and Rush both.
Weird.
Liberals are so retarded, they have no idea who the presidential candidate was.
You do realize you are comparing the liberal presidential candidate Obama to the conservative *vice*-presidential candidate Palin.
Is Obama so horrible you have to compare him to our 'fallback' president?
Basically, the existence of nuclear weapons make the old tactics obsolete. Remove the nuclear weapons and the old ways are no longer obsolete.
Of course the tough part is 'remove the nuclear weapons'.
...but the Libyans still have one. Well--guess who calls the shots.
Let's say the US and Russia totally ditch every nuke.
It would be the same if everyone in the world suddenly didn't have a gun--but I did. I'd be king. At least until someone invents phasers.
Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.
FBI warrant application form:
Justify your search and/or seizure under Constitutional amendment four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
*agent scratches head*
Uh...anything with blinkenlights.
Yeah--that ought to do it.
Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.
Don't want interlopers driving through your community? Make it gated and pay for your own maintenance instead of expecting the local government to take care of it for you.
Exactly. And the dude quoted is the biggest retard:
If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike
Try replacing 'houses' with 'pictures' and 'strike' with 'rape' to get an idea of how idiotic that line of thinking sounds. If our pictures are all over Google, it's an invitation for more criminals to rape.
So; you ran daily updates on your system and had uptime measured in years? How did you manage to patch/update your kernel? Did you apply those patches/updates without rebooting? How?
From your post, you sound like the epitome of an arrogant Linux user who throws half-truths around while looking down your nose at everyone who isn't just like you. When you use that tone, do you expect people to actually listen to you or are you just trolling for an argument? Sheesh.
The last kernel update for Ubuntu was 1/29/2009 and dealt with:
1. A *local* user attacking the ATM subsystem to cause a denial of service attack. (Who cares about a local user on my laptop or my servers--none of which use ATM)
2. A *local* attacker could exploit inotify to crash the system. (Once again, I'm not going to exploit my own personal laptop, and my servers have only root access. Might suck for a computer lab. A student could crash their own computer--yikes).
3. Memory exhaustion by a local attacker using sendmsg. (Same as above--I'm not going to exploit my servers or laptop.)
4. A RISC-based attack. (Running x86 hardware everywhere)
5. ATA timeout issue--*local* DOS. (Same answers are before)
6. And lastly, another LOCAL attack with the ib700 watchdog timer. Another module I don't use.
So in response--we're not arrogant linux users. We're not affected by most of the obscure updates. We simply install the updates, and in a few years when the machines are rebooted, the patched files are running.
In the Windows world, you end up with a Solitaire bug that lets you put Red Queen on Red King and the for some stupid reason the kernel needs to be patched and the box rebooted.
Yes. Vista is rock solid on solid hardware. Seriously. Vista is as reliable as Linux. Some people wreck their vista installation, some people wreck their Linux installation.
I have two identical servers. One of them has over 2 years uptime. The other one had 18 days, but was just rebooted a few minutes ago due to Windows updates. Care to guess which one is running Linux?
strlen("216.34.181.45") > strlen("slashdot.org")
Since HTTP 1.1 sends the requested hostname along with the path (it's how a server can offer up multiple websites from one IP address), your proposal, serious though it isn't, wouldn't actually save bandwidth.
I noticed my screwup a few seconds after I posted. I was hoping no one else would.
...but this is slashdot.
Openness implies lower barriers to entry. If they control the technology, they control the admission price. If you want to play on our 'cloud' then it's going to cost a CAL.
If Microsoft were a country, they'd be very wealthy. I believe the exchange rate is $1.00EUC to ~$85.00USD. (EUC - Exchange User Cal)
compression to shorten the URL's?
And while we're at it, DNS traffic is starting to look a bit bulky. Forget dumping 'friendly' URLs, let's dump friendly domains too.
From now on, please access Slashdot via http://216.34.181.45/
(I'm among the hard-core ribbon-haters)
The hard-core ribbon haters now have a support group. It's called "Everyone". We meet in the bar at 5:30 PM local time.
This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."
In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.
How did life start on earth? I've heard a lot of different 'non-God' views--lightning strike, perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo', etc... But no one seems to be able to reduce the problem further. What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang, etc...
Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".
In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.
The same can be said somewhat of religion. If God created the heavens and the earth, what created God?
Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.
I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.
Unfortunately it goes both ways. Take the global warming debate for instance. Some people are flat out certain the oceans will be boiling in 10 years. Others have debunked that claim. And yet others have debunked the debunkers. Hell--I remember when carbon dating was considered absolute proof--then they figured out they were off by quite and bit and had to re-estimate everything again.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.
I was unclear. Check autorun files, validate Microsoft signatures and then remove everything without a valid signature.
That would probably be a bad idea. Using the autoruns program from SysInternals.com, I checked the signatures of all my files.
...though I am thinking about the problem from the perspective of a server admin, and not a home desktop user.
Here are a few that would lead to a bad day if deleted... Exchange
Nope.
_ALL_ executable files needed for boot (except for ntldr) are signed with Microsoft key.
In your first post, you are telling people to check 'autorun' files for signatures. That has nothing to do with boot files.
Do not use safe mode. Boot from a LiveCD and then check all the signatures of autorun files. Microsoft programs are signed with Microsoft key.
Let me fix this for you: "Boot from a LiveCD and then check all the signatures of autorun files. Most Microsoft programs are signed with Microsoft [sic] key.
For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.
And the point I am making is that schools have already been doing that for years.
For example, affirmative action.
If you let someone into the school and graduate them not based on their skill, but their skin color--well, you're degree is worthless.
What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?
And I would not hire a pottery specialist either, sorry.
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
Microsoft: can we come to see you and have a chat?
French: Crap! We surrender.
details show that Hitachi has plead guilty to a one-count felony.
Damn. Poor Hitachi. They just lost their right to vote and carry a gun.