DUPE! Whatever idiot posted this was ignoring one of the highest-commented articles of the year. There are 1569 comments already written- let's all pick one, paste it in here, and we can have the same giant flamefest; with a lot less work!
The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago. You're consistent in your mistakes, no matter how spectacularly you've been proven wrong- a trait Bush would admire.
I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth
Right. I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
Idea: GPG signed config files that don't work if modified w/o the right sigs.
At best, that's security-through-obscurity. At worst, it's useless: because the attacker, having access to your user account, can sign files just like you could.
Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won.
False. So many people repeat these flat-out lies... just go to the actual data and see for yourself.
The New York Times (working alongside allied papers like the WSJ) used 24 separate counting styles. (24 = 2 * 2 * 6) Bush won 12 of them, and Gore won 12 also. (The paper also selected 4 of those styles to highly more prominently, so some readers might've thought there were only 4 options, not 24. Even so, those 4 were still split in half)
Of course, the newspapers were complicit in suppressing the actual ambiguity of the findings... considering that their recount completed on Sep 9th, and publication would've been Sep 13th, they didn't want to attack the President's legitimacy just then.
The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.
And it happened to be the method employed by the Floridian recounters... until the Supreme Court told them to stop. If the Court had not halted the already-ongoing recount, Gore would've won.
You are not seeing the forest. The election turned on 500 votes in Florida.
False. Gore only lost by 500 votes- but Nader got 90,000 votes! If Nader hadn't been running, and his supporters had only a slight preference to Democrats, then Gore would've won. Plus, Nader cost Gore the election in New Hampshire too.
The fact that the election was so close that statistical error and noise decided the election is entirely his fault, his failing.
False. Elections being completely close is the natural advance of technology. As polling becomes faster and more accurate and each party's planners have increasingly better predictive power, they stablize towards exactly equal division.
It is the age of Spoilers. The 2000 election was completely determined by Nader. The 1992 election was completely determined by Ross Perot.
backward-compatibility has nothing to do with why they use Windows.
Yes they do. Those people want to view files coming to them from Windows computers, either by email or web downloads- and that's backwards compatibility. If you need to communicate with users of MS Office or anything similar, backwards-compat matters to you.
Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing.
Because we weren't born yesterday.
Everybody already knows that the Senators from the opposition party to the President will filibuster to block his judicial nominations. That's Standard Operating Procedure, something documented in high-school history class.
Back in 1999, this was one of the major reasons liberals gave for the Bush-Gore election to be important. Nobody expected Bush to actually behave much differently from Gore in terms of running the country (boy, were they wrong), but the advancing age of Supreme Court Justices means that 2-3 of them could retire any day now. When that happens, the Supreme Court's 4-4-1 split will end and whichever party currently holds the presidency will lock in a sympathetic Justice for the next several decades. (Potentially allowing for a reversal of Roe-Wade or other major changes)
SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate.
Uh, you know, Servergate was FIRST amoung all those things. It happened back in 2003 for cryin out loud! This current story is just the latest twist in an ongoing but unpopular scandal. It won't block anything from the headlines- nobody really cares. The Republicans have apologized, the Democrats fixed their computers, the judicial confirmations are finished- it's over.
Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken"
There was no "property" involved at all, not even "intellectual property". Materials authored by government employees in the course of their work are public domain, and not subject to copyright control.
he still entered without permission (without privilege
He had permission. The system adminsitrator, quite literally, gave him permissions to read those files. Yes, he had been given permission inadvertently- but if you inadvertently mail me $100, it's your loss!
Next time, try to get at least one true fact before posting.
What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.
It might matter, if it were true. (In fact, many government employees have exactly the opposite requirement, and are FORBIDDEN from hiding the nature of their work from the public)
Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable
The materials he released were neither secret nor confidental. Therefore, Miranda is perfectly safe. (In th Senate, "confidential" means "received in closed session, information obtained in the confidential phases of investigations, and classified national security information")
not informing the systems administrators of the problem
He informed them 7 months before the "scandal" broke. They didn't seem to care.
He KNEW what would happen if he broke the rules, he broke them anyway,
He knew exactly what the rules are, and how far they can be pushed before breaking.
To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department."
Which is exactly why any member of the Senate, given permission (as indicated by the configuration of the shared drives) to access Senate-authored documents (written on taxpayer-funded time), is permitted and even obligated to disclose them if he feels the public deserves to know the contents.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
Funny that you're defending Bush using the language of appeasement, which he claims to despise as a sign of typically-liberal moral bankrupcy. He describes himself as Churchill, not Chamberlain!
Bush's position regarding in-vitro fertilization is not impotent opposition- it is hypocritical support.
There are other major differences between Iraq and Germany (and also Japan). The biggest one is that Iraq, like the geographically similar Islamic nations in the region (which doesn't include Turkey, Pakistan, or Egypt), has no prospect for a useful economy.
Iraq, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is a barren desert (and with global warming, it'll only get worse). The only reason for many people to live there is oil revenues- but that's not something that can provide employment to more than a few percent of the people. It's essentially money owned by the government, which they can distribute (or not) as they see fit.
That's why no oil-rich desert Middle-East country is a democracy- the economic background simply doesn't support anything but a parasitic kleptocracy.
The oil fields of Iraq are actually a great barrier towards them ever achieving democratic governance.
Iraq's economy is actually stronger now than under Saddam.
False. Under Saddam, Iraq had around 20x the GNP it does today. Oh, did you want to pick the WORST economy Saddam had, instead of the best? Well in that case, you'd have to admit that the problems were caused by the USA's attack.
Out of hundreds of Iraqi cities, three are causing problems, and only one, Fallujah,
Do you not read the newspapers, or can you just not count? Even Bagdad contains streets that the US Army is unwilling to drive down.
but it's a whole lot safer than downtown Washington D.C. or Mexico City
Oops, I made the mistake of arguing against someone who thinks that 9 is greater than 4000. Or that mortars are raining on Pennsylvania Avenue.
what it said was some of Bush's military paperwork was missing.
And 100% of his military eyewitnesses.
You simply cannot serve for 6 months in a unit without meeting people who will remember you 30 years later. Somebody from the Alabama guard would've stepped forward with a recollection of working with Bush there.
For someone to claim to have served in a military unit, but to be unable to find any fellow veterans from the same unit... is just plain spooky.
(One person did, but he turned out to be a partisan liar, whose recorded service dates didn't overlap with Bush's at all)
My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to/..
Yeah, Twirlip is cool like that. He's supposedly running 3 different major troll accounts on alternating days. People like that inspire the creation of whole new classes of insults- "moron" doesn't work, "cretin" isn't much better... what's a concise term for "acts as if everyone else is an idiot"?
Twirlip is great at misdirection. He can divert any conversation towards a minor subpart where he's correct, and then he tries to strech that local correctness to apply to his entire position. You can't fall into that trap- once he focuses you down on a little detail, he'll never admit it's not the whole picture.
In this situation, the essential anti-Bush case is that his duty was to be a ANG pilot for 5 years, but he stopped flying after only 2. The ANG let him get away with this, probably because of family influence. Twirlip (and thousands like him) takes the fact that his commander cooperated in the dereliction makes it OK. That's circular reasoning, at best.
Furthermore, the pro-Bush side lures attackers into focusing on documents, when the far more damning evidence comes from the total lack of ex-Guardsmen who report having served with him in Alabama.
It's like a business employee claiming "Yes boss, I was at work 9-5 Friday. Look, my timecard is punched and everything". Anyone who believes that counts as evidence simply lacks imagination (or more likely, in the case of Twirlip, hopes that readers will)
How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other.
Uh... easy. Because you have people on one side (Swift Vote Veterans for Truth, for example), claiming that the opposing candidate contrived to abuse military records for his own benefit. By making that statement, they imply a distrust for the correctness of military records, and thus open up counterattacks which suggest their own candidate
I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side
It's only a double standard if one allows SBVT to claim that Kerry acted worse than the records indicate, and then to awards but to attack TfT on the grounds of questioning military accuracy.
In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
No. In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA. Nothing Iraq had qualifies. $500,000 spent in Austin TX could buy you better terrorist capabilities than they had.
Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever.
But it looks like it could still be anyone's race- less than 20 Electoral College Votes separate the candidates in the lates polls,
Uh, no. It's Sep 21, and Bush is ahead in the latest poll by 107 electoral votes. That's how the winner-take-all distribution of Electoral College votes turns a 6% lead into 35%.
The only thing that can save Kerry is a major Bush fumble, either during the debates, or some foreign-policy blunder.
Common error: Assuming that there are only 2 sides to every issue, and that by disproving one side, you prove the other. cf "You're either with me, or with the terrorists"
Linux is just as susuptable to all those nasty things as everything else
False. Linux is not invulnerable, but it's not "just as susuptable" either. The overwhelming majority of attacks today target Microsoft(tm) Windows(r). Linux is immune to those, therefore it's not equally susceptible. Could it become more vulernable in the future if more hackers target it? Sure, but that's the FUTURE, and you used the PRESENT tense.
However, if a user gets an email with the subject "Awesome Pic!" and the attachment "virus.jpeg.exe"
I'm trying with several Linux mail readers right now, and I simply can't get it to run an executable attachment by clicking on it. Executable files on linux are indicated not by filename extension, but by executable bit- an attribute which is not preserved on a mail attachment.
Can anyone name a Linux mailreader which will automate the process of running an executable attachment by clicking on it?
Re:To help explain security...
on
Security Alert
·
· Score: 0
Why don't you demonstrate security flaws instead of just explaining them?
Slashdot Mirror
sighting a target, firing your weapon, and somehow, the target having enough time to SIDE STEP OUT OF THE WAY OF YOUR SHOT, even after it's been fired
Hello? That's how Star Wars works. You remember some 50-plus Stormtroopers blasting away at Han Solo as he ran around the Death Star?
"Sorry Lord Vader, we just can't hit the Rebel scum! It's weapon-lag!"
DUPE! Whatever idiot posted this was ignoring one of the highest-commented articles of the year. There are 1569 comments already written- let's all pick one, paste it in here, and we can have the same giant flamefest; with a lot less work!
The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago. You're consistent in your mistakes, no matter how spectacularly you've been proven wrong- a trait Bush would admire.
I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth
Right. I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
Idea: GPG signed config files that don't work if modified w/o the right sigs.
At best, that's security-through-obscurity. At worst, it's useless: because the attacker, having access to your user account, can sign files just like you could.
Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won.
False. So many people repeat these flat-out lies... just go to the actual data and see for yourself.
The New York Times (working alongside allied papers like the WSJ) used 24 separate counting styles. (24 = 2 * 2 * 6) Bush won 12 of them, and Gore won 12 also. (The paper also selected 4 of those styles to highly more prominently, so some readers might've thought there were only 4 options, not 24. Even so, those 4 were still split in half)
Of course, the newspapers were complicit in suppressing the actual ambiguity of the findings... considering that their recount completed on Sep 9th, and publication would've been Sep 13th, they didn't want to attack the President's legitimacy just then.
The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.
And it happened to be the method employed by the Floridian recounters... until the Supreme Court told them to stop. If the Court had not halted the already-ongoing recount, Gore would've won.
You are not seeing the forest. The election turned on 500 votes in Florida.
False. Gore only lost by 500 votes- but Nader got 90,000 votes! If Nader hadn't been running, and his supporters had only a slight preference to Democrats, then Gore would've won. Plus, Nader cost Gore the election in New Hampshire too.
The fact that the election was so close that statistical error and noise decided the election is entirely his fault, his failing.
False. Elections being completely close is the natural advance of technology. As polling becomes faster and more accurate and each party's planners have increasingly better predictive power, they stablize towards exactly equal division.
It is the age of Spoilers. The 2000 election was completely determined by Nader. The 1992 election was completely determined by Ross Perot.
Which means if you only distribute your closed variant of a GPL'd project from a jurisdiction with no copyright then you are home free?
Great idea! Also, we can buy $0.05 Windows XP CD-Rs on the sidewalk in Tehran and then resell them for $99 in the USA! That'll be perfectly legal.
Or heck, why bother going to Iran? Just sail 300 miles out into international waters, where national laws stop applying, and copy away!
backward-compatibility has nothing to do with why they use Windows.
Yes they do. Those people want to view files coming to them from Windows computers, either by email or web downloads- and that's backwards compatibility. If you need to communicate with users of MS Office or anything similar, backwards-compat matters to you.
Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing.
Because we weren't born yesterday.
Everybody already knows that the Senators from the opposition party to the President will filibuster to block his judicial nominations. That's Standard Operating Procedure, something documented in high-school history class.
Back in 1999, this was one of the major reasons liberals gave for the Bush-Gore election to be important. Nobody expected Bush to actually behave much differently from Gore in terms of running the country (boy, were they wrong), but the advancing age of Supreme Court Justices means that 2-3 of them could retire any day now. When that happens, the Supreme Court's 4-4-1 split will end and whichever party currently holds the presidency will lock in a sympathetic Justice for the next several decades. (Potentially allowing for a reversal of Roe-Wade or other major changes)
SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate.
Uh, you know, Servergate was FIRST amoung all those things. It happened back in 2003 for cryin out loud! This current story is just the latest twist in an ongoing but unpopular scandal. It won't block anything from the headlines- nobody really cares. The Republicans have apologized, the Democrats fixed their computers, the judicial confirmations are finished- it's over.
Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken"
There was no "property" involved at all, not even "intellectual property". Materials authored by government employees in the course of their work are public domain, and not subject to copyright control.
he still entered without permission (without privilege
He had permission. The system adminsitrator, quite literally, gave him permissions to read those files. Yes, he had been given permission inadvertently- but if you inadvertently mail me $100, it's your loss!
What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.
It might matter, if it were true. (In fact, many government employees have exactly the opposite requirement, and are FORBIDDEN from hiding the nature of their work from the public)
Instead, look at the real rule (number 5):
- Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable
The materials he released were neither secret nor confidental. Therefore, Miranda is perfectly safe. (In th Senate, "confidential" means "received in closed session, information obtained in the confidential phases of investigations, and classified national security information")not informing the systems administrators of the problem
He informed them 7 months before the "scandal" broke. They didn't seem to care.
He KNEW what would happen if he broke the rules, he broke them anyway,
He knew exactly what the rules are, and how far they can be pushed before breaking.
To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department."
Which is exactly why any member of the Senate, given permission (as indicated by the configuration of the shared drives) to access Senate-authored documents (written on taxpayer-funded time), is permitted and even obligated to disclose them if he feels the public deserves to know the contents.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
Funny that you're defending Bush using the language of appeasement, which he claims to despise as a sign of typically-liberal moral bankrupcy. He describes himself as Churchill, not Chamberlain!
Bush's position regarding in-vitro fertilization is not impotent opposition- it is hypocritical support.
Remember Germany, after WWII?
There are other major differences between Iraq and Germany (and also Japan). The biggest one is that Iraq, like the geographically similar Islamic nations in the region (which doesn't include Turkey, Pakistan, or Egypt), has no prospect for a useful economy.
Iraq, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is a barren desert (and with global warming, it'll only get worse). The only reason for many people to live there is oil revenues- but that's not something that can provide employment to more than a few percent of the people. It's essentially money owned by the government, which they can distribute (or not) as they see fit.
That's why no oil-rich desert Middle-East country is a democracy- the economic background simply doesn't support anything but a parasitic kleptocracy.
The oil fields of Iraq are actually a great barrier towards them ever achieving democratic governance.
Iraq's economy is actually stronger now than under Saddam.
False. Under Saddam, Iraq had around 20x the GNP it does today. Oh, did you want to pick the WORST economy Saddam had, instead of the best? Well in that case, you'd have to admit that the problems were caused by the USA's attack.
Out of hundreds of Iraqi cities, three are causing problems, and only one, Fallujah,
Do you not read the newspapers, or can you just not count? Even Bagdad contains streets that the US Army is unwilling to drive down.
but it's a whole lot safer than downtown Washington D.C. or Mexico City
Oops, I made the mistake of arguing against someone who thinks that 9 is greater than 4000. Or that mortars are raining on Pennsylvania Avenue.
PS. Learn the definition of "democracy" sometime.
The program is called Pine.
Pine... pine. Ah yes, I have that filed beside Elm and Mutt under "applications no newbie desktop Linux user will ever run, or even hear of".
what it said was some of Bush's military paperwork was missing.
And 100% of his military eyewitnesses.
You simply cannot serve for 6 months in a unit without meeting people who will remember you 30 years later. Somebody from the Alabama guard would've stepped forward with a recollection of working with Bush there.
For someone to claim to have served in a military unit, but to be unable to find any fellow veterans from the same unit... is just plain spooky.
(One person did, but he turned out to be a partisan liar, whose recorded service dates didn't overlap with Bush's at all)
But quagmire is simply an inaccurate term to use.
Quagmire: n, a difficult situation.
Right, it's not difficult, you say... go book your vacation in Baghdad then.
My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to /..
Yeah, Twirlip is cool like that. He's supposedly running 3 different major troll accounts on alternating days. People like that inspire the creation of whole new classes of insults- "moron" doesn't work, "cretin" isn't much better... what's a concise term for "acts as if everyone else is an idiot"?
Twirlip is great at misdirection. He can divert any conversation towards a minor subpart where he's correct, and then he tries to strech that local correctness to apply to his entire position. You can't fall into that trap- once he focuses you down on a little detail, he'll never admit it's not the whole picture.
In this situation, the essential anti-Bush case is that his duty was to be a ANG pilot for 5 years, but he stopped flying after only 2. The ANG let him get away with this, probably because of family influence. Twirlip (and thousands like him) takes the fact that his commander cooperated in the dereliction makes it OK. That's circular reasoning, at best.
Furthermore, the pro-Bush side lures attackers into focusing on documents, when the far more damning evidence comes from the total lack of ex-Guardsmen who report having served with him in Alabama.
It's like a business employee claiming "Yes boss, I was at work 9-5 Friday. Look, my timecard is punched and everything". Anyone who believes that counts as evidence simply lacks imagination (or more likely, in the case of Twirlip, hopes that readers will)
How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other.
Uh... easy. Because you have people on one side (Swift Vote Veterans for Truth, for example), claiming that the opposing candidate contrived to abuse military records for his own benefit. By making that statement, they imply a distrust for the correctness of military records, and thus open up counterattacks which suggest their own candidate
I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side
It's only a double standard if one allows SBVT to claim that Kerry acted worse than the records indicate, and then to awards but to attack TfT on the grounds of questioning military accuracy.
In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
No. In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA. Nothing Iraq had qualifies. $500,000 spent in Austin TX could buy you better terrorist capabilities than they had.
Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever.
That's how Dubya choose to define it. But you're right, I've heard he may be secretly liberal after all.
But it looks like it could still be anyone's race- less than 20 Electoral College Votes separate the candidates in the lates polls,
Uh, no. It's Sep 21, and Bush is ahead in the latest poll by 107 electoral votes. That's how the winner-take-all distribution of Electoral College votes turns a 6% lead into 35%.
The only thing that can save Kerry is a major Bush fumble, either during the debates, or some foreign-policy blunder.
Common myth:
Common error: Assuming that there are only 2 sides to every issue, and that by disproving one side, you prove the other. cf "You're either with me, or with the terrorists"
Linux is just as susuptable to all those nasty things as everything else
False. Linux is not invulnerable, but it's not "just as susuptable" either. The overwhelming majority of attacks today target Microsoft(tm) Windows(r). Linux is immune to those, therefore it's not equally susceptible. Could it become more vulernable in the future if more hackers target it? Sure, but that's the FUTURE, and you used the PRESENT tense.
However, if a user gets an email with the subject "Awesome Pic!" and the attachment "virus.jpeg.exe"
I'm trying with several Linux mail readers right now, and I simply can't get it to run an executable attachment by clicking on it. Executable files on linux are indicated not by filename extension, but by executable bit- an attribute which is not preserved on a mail attachment.
Can anyone name a Linux mailreader which will automate the process of running an executable attachment by clicking on it?
Why don't you demonstrate security flaws instead of just explaining them?
h3y, g00d 1d34. 1'll try th4t n3xt t1m3 4 lus3r m4k3s m3 f1x h1s c0mput3r. c4n u t3ll m3 4 g00d s1t3 2 g3t d3m0 r00tk1ts n h4x?
k thx by3