Have you cared to read the database from the site you have now linked?
Why yes, I have. I've also read the various discourse available on the site as well as breakdown and statistical analysis also available on the site.
How does a car bomb, intended for a US convoy, that ends up killing Iraqi civilians count against the US?
It doesn't, and I never said it did. What you seem to ignore is the fact that these casualty counts are small compared to those caused by US military action.
On just the first page I counted 10+ instances where the "weapon" was listed as either "car bomb" or "roadside bomb".
And one US offensive on that same page completely dwarfs all those casualties combined. It's quite obvious that you've got very selective senses.
You are harming your credibility by not actually reading your own source and researching in depth. Instead, you take a number off the front page whose sole purpose is to be sensational.
On the contrary, I have read the source. It's you who has not. You've simply skimmed perhaps the first couple pages of the database, saw something that at first glance looked like it corroborated your position, and then rode with it. And when did I ever refer to the tally on that site's front page? Never? That's right. I'm not responsible for how a website organizes its headlines, and I deliberately made no reference to that tally because it was not relevent to the subject of who is killing more civilians.
You're fabricating your own references to sensationalism and then for some inconceivable reasion, arguing them against yourself... Don't speak to me of credibility when have none yourself.
You come out with some statistic that makes you look good, but ignores many sides of the story.
Don't hand me that; this is precisely what you have been doing. I couldn't care less how I "look" on a faceless forum. I gave you a source of information and you cherry-picked partial statistics and then presented it to me as if I wouldn't notice what you ignored/left out.
Now, come out and truly, truly show me one thing that shows why Iraq as a whole is worse off now than it was under Saddam's cruel rule
What on God's green Earth led you to believe I'm arguing this at all? All I'm doing is informing you that the evidence supports what the other poster told you; that the US military is the cause of most of the civilian deaths in Iraq.
Christ... Yeah, you go on making shit up and arguing points no one brought up. Asshat.
There's a link in that article to a site that has totals and incident-by-incident breakdowns as well as analyses. Civillian deaths caused by US forces account for something like 90+ % of the total. There's a reason such information isn't readily available from the mainstream press.
Way to single out and clasp onto a tenuous nibblet of quotation for the sake of your earlier postulation. You totally harmed your credibility by doing that, rather than being compelling. I can scarcely believe you did that with such apparent vigor.
Mod grandparent up. The news article doesn't have anything informative, but some of the sites it links to do.
It would be a lot faster to use a conventional rocket. The cost to launch this thing into orbit and get it to the moon is a quarter of the cost just to launch a shuttle into orbit, though.
If you had read the post that originated this part of the thread, you'd notice that piping to head was exactly what was being done.
"ls -ltr" was offered as an alternative to get the most recent files in a readable position on the screen. Namely, the bottom with the older files scrolling off the screen.
Displaying a lot of files is slow however, which is why it would be better to stick with the original piping method to limit the amount of text being displayed.
Since the poster's link was to the front page rather than the product page, you probably went searching and found the K8S, which has no AGP slot.
What the poster was referring to was the K8W, which does indeed have an AGP 8x/Pro slot. No DDR400+ memory support, but that stuff's hard to find in ECC, damned expensive, and dual memory banks give it a much bigger edge in speed over single-bank designs anyway.
There are some unlucky people who practiced due dilligence and thought they were patched, but were not.
Windows Update had (and still has) a flaw in that it checks registry keys to determine if you have patches installed, rather than the files themselves. Sometimes the registry key is inserted but some or all of the actual patch files are not, for one reason or another. This happened to many people on July 17th, and they were probably really surprised when they got hit by the MS Blaster worm.
One particularly noteworthy victim of this flaw is the US army.
Your suggestion has some merit, but it involves the Outlook users installing and learning to use some public key encryption implimentation like GPG.
For most, this process is completely out of the question. These are the same people who can't be bothered to apply patches or switch to a much less frequently compromised e-mail client. These people aren't going to change their habits unless actually forced. It's either that or something needs to be implimented that will transparently protect them from themselves with 100% effectiveness (AV software is useful and all, but it has obviously failed in this regard).
I disagree. A properly constructed program like apache (which doesn't actually use its root process to interact with users or files) is no root-compromise risk. The risks of a race for the port by a malicious user and an embarassing defacement are far more serious to my company. As to your solution, what if one of the users in the group is malicious? Then you're back to square one.
The ports 1-1024 bindable only by root is also a standard that must be adhered to or you risk breaking software, which is unacceptable in most business environments. Things like grsec's low-port group exist so you can choose to take that risk.
So, just use grsecurity if you want it done that way.:)
note: Some software developers also choose to bind to high ports and take the risk of a port race (eg: mySQL), which is of course entirely their own perrogative.
I don't recall saying anything about Linux, or any of its services. You simply assumed with that counter-example that I was insinuating Linux is a silver bullet compared to Windows. Quite frankly, I'm a little offended at that.
I'm also not happy with Linux vendors that ship disributions with unneccessary services open by default, either. That's just awful for security in Linux distributions that are supposed to be "user-friendly", where the user may be new and has no idea what sendmail is, let alone that it's compromised on a regular basis.
Users need to at least know it's important to patch and how to do it, otherwise it's useless to blame them because they couldn't have behaved any differently.
Ports 1-1024 are your reserved ports. They're standard so there's no confusion, and any services where it would be a bad idea to let a user bind to the port are assigned numbers in this range as their standard ports.
As I said in example- POP3, where you would be entering authentication data. Or HTTP where your company's website resides and your reputation could be damaged by a malicious user hijacking port 80 to put up a defacement.
It's to stop a regular user from, say, binding to port 110 and grabbing user passwords with a fake POP3 session if for any reason you need to reload or take down your pop3 server.
by your reasoning, the RIAA is perfectly in the right in going after Napster et al, since they engendered a computing culture that promotes theft of service?
That's "copyright infringement," not "theft of service."
Copyright infringment is no less a bad thing, but calling it theft of service is just silly. You bent the example just a little bit too far to make your point, and it broke.
I've seen apt eat more than a few machines myself
I've never seen apt eat a machine. Of course, I also lay off the UNSTABLE branch because it's the UNSTABLE branch. This may or may not be related.:-P
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There's a design flaw in Windows Update that led to numerous people believing they were patched when in fact they were not.
Windows Update checks registry keys to see if you've applied a patch, rather than the files themselves. It's uncomfortably common to have a machine update the registry but for one reason or another fail to update the files. From that point on the user thinks they're protected and windowsupdate.com also tells them they are. That's one hole that still isn't fixed.
Other users can't patch even if they want to because the patches can interfere with normal operations and must be thoroughly tested first. Fixes really shouldn't break the systems they're supposed to fix, but they can and do.
Still more users just don't know enough to update regularly. These people are a menace to their neighbors on the net, but they've never been properly educated on the importance and the how of maintaining their security... and why would they? There's no incentive to tell them something that might drive to another platform.
Right- there's nothing stopping you from upgrading a mac platform. Saying that you can't is just misinformation.
But then, so is saying that macs require less support than PCs. Cringly doesn't seem to have any experience with Mac support in a large organization, or he wouldn't be making these statements.
They are not without their faults and they most certainly do have their fair share of trouble. In my experience (from a mixed Win/Mac environment), the number of support calls per Mac user is about on par with those per PC user each year.
I'm not sure how the different problems each platform has compare, though. Maybe others could chime in with their experiences.
note: I do have to agree with some people that Mac hardware is much more expensive than PC hardware for comparable tasks. This isn't the point at hand, however.
Worst case, a 256mb CF card rated for 1 million writes being written to an average of twice a minute, with at least one cell being re-used on every single write, without a wear-leveller, will last about a year before the repeatedly re-used cell(s) die.
Just about every modern CF card has wear-levelling, though. They transparently remap their layout to spread writes out across all cells. The device they're attached to is presented with a virtual mapping of cells so that nothing appears to move; when in fact the boot block that looks to start at cell 0 may have actually moved to cell 42,000 the last time it was updated because those cells have experienced less wear.
You'll only go through one write cycle of the card's lifetime for every multiple of its capacity you write to the card. Even at 10% efficiency, this means a 256mb card will last until you've written approximately 25.6 petabytes to it in total across its lifetime.
I don't think I'd want to use CF for an active swap partition, but it should handle firewall logging duty just fine.
Doom III has monsters coming from everywhere, crawling along the walls/pipes, coming out of a panel on the floor, etc.
To be fair, Alien vs Predator for the PC already had the crawling monsters pouncing from overhangs and ventilation shafts. So did most games based on the "Alien" movies, for that matter...
The AI has thus far been pitiful, though. It consists of: "Charge at the player and bite & swipe with claws/tail, if you survive long enough to get that close."
Of course, those are old GX-line Dell Optiplex machines. They're Intel-based uniprocessor workstations and lack things that help servers serve up pages quickly & correctly, like a 64bit/66mhz PCI bus, SCSI, RAID and ECC memory.
SCSI & RAID could possibly be installed, but on a University department's IT budget I don't see why they'd go to the expense when it may or may not help in some instances, and they could just grab a second box from storage/surplus.
Those two old clunkers combined don't even come close to a dual AMD MP 2600+ w/2GB DDR ram. The dual AMD would handle a static-page slashdotting of the described magnitude easily, bandwidth permitting.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you cared to read the database from the site you have now linked?
Why yes, I have. I've also read the various discourse available on the site as well as breakdown and statistical analysis also available on the site.
How does a car bomb, intended for a US convoy, that ends up killing Iraqi civilians count against the US?
It doesn't, and I never said it did. What you seem to ignore is the fact that these casualty counts are small compared to those caused by US military action.
On just the first page I counted 10+ instances where the "weapon" was listed as either "car bomb" or "roadside bomb".
And one US offensive on that same page completely dwarfs all those casualties combined. It's quite obvious that you've got very selective senses.
You are harming your credibility by not actually reading your own source and researching in depth. Instead, you take a number off the front page whose sole purpose is to be sensational.
On the contrary, I have read the source. It's you who has not. You've simply skimmed perhaps the first couple pages of the database, saw something that at first glance looked like it corroborated your position, and then rode with it. And when did I ever refer to the tally on that site's front page? Never? That's right. I'm not responsible for how a website organizes its headlines, and I deliberately made no reference to that tally because it was not relevent to the subject of who is killing more civilians.
You're fabricating your own references to sensationalism and then for some inconceivable reasion, arguing them against yourself... Don't speak to me of credibility when have none yourself.
You come out with some statistic that makes you look good, but ignores many sides of the story.
Don't hand me that; this is precisely what you have been doing. I couldn't care less how I "look" on a faceless forum. I gave you a source of information and you cherry-picked partial statistics and then presented it to me as if I wouldn't notice what you ignored/left out.
Now, come out and truly, truly show me one thing that shows why Iraq as a whole is worse off now than it was under Saddam's cruel rule
What on God's green Earth led you to believe I'm arguing this at all? All I'm doing is informing you that the evidence supports what the other poster told you; that the US military is the cause of most of the civilian deaths in Iraq.
Christ... Yeah, you go on making shit up and arguing points no one brought up. Asshat.
There's a link in that article to a site that has totals and incident-by-incident breakdowns as well as analyses. Civillian deaths caused by US forces account for something like 90+ % of the total. There's a reason such information isn't readily available from the mainstream press.
Way to single out and clasp onto a tenuous nibblet of quotation for the sake of your earlier postulation. You totally harmed your credibility by doing that, rather than being compelling. I can scarcely believe you did that with such apparent vigor.
Mod grandparent up. The news article doesn't have anything informative, but some of the sites it links to do.
It would be a lot faster to use a conventional rocket. The cost to launch this thing into orbit and get it to the moon is a quarter of the cost just to launch a shuttle into orbit, though.
If you had read the post that originated this part of the thread, you'd notice that piping to head was exactly what was being done.
"ls -ltr" was offered as an alternative to get the most recent files in a readable position on the screen. Namely, the bottom with the older files scrolling off the screen.
Displaying a lot of files is slow however, which is why it would be better to stick with the original piping method to limit the amount of text being displayed.
If you've got a really massive list of files, that could actually take a moment to display; which would be annoying with frequent use.
Since the poster's link was to the front page rather than the product page, you probably went searching and found the K8S, which has no AGP slot.
What the poster was referring to was the K8W, which does indeed have an AGP 8x/Pro slot. No DDR400+ memory support, but that stuff's hard to find in ECC, damned expensive, and dual memory banks give it a much bigger edge in speed over single-bank designs anyway.
There are some unlucky people who practiced due dilligence and thought they were patched, but were not.
Windows Update had (and still has) a flaw in that it checks registry keys to determine if you have patches installed, rather than the files themselves. Sometimes the registry key is inserted but some or all of the actual patch files are not, for one reason or another. This happened to many people on July 17th, and they were probably really surprised when they got hit by the MS Blaster worm.
One particularly noteworthy victim of this flaw is the US army.
Windows Is 'Insecure By Design,' Says Washington Post
Obligatory Slashdot one-liner: "No shit."
Your suggestion has some merit, but it involves the Outlook users installing and learning to use some public key encryption implimentation like GPG.
For most, this process is completely out of the question. These are the same people who can't be bothered to apply patches or switch to a much less frequently compromised e-mail client.
These people aren't going to change their habits unless actually forced. It's either that or something needs to be implimented that will transparently protect them from themselves with 100% effectiveness (AV software is useful and all, but it has obviously failed in this regard).
Right now, the only viable defense is vigilance.
The sharkport is no longer available at the link you provided. You can get the x-port instead for $10 less.
I disagree. A properly constructed program like apache (which doesn't actually use its root process to interact with users or files) is no root-compromise risk. The risks of a race for the port by a malicious user and an embarassing defacement are far more serious to my company.
:)
As to your solution, what if one of the users in the group is malicious? Then you're back to square one.
The ports 1-1024 bindable only by root is also a standard that must be adhered to or you risk breaking software, which is unacceptable in most business environments. Things like grsec's low-port group exist so you can choose to take that risk.
So, just use grsecurity if you want it done that way.
note: Some software developers also choose to bind to high ports and take the risk of a port race (eg: mySQL), which is of course entirely their own perrogative.
I don't recall saying anything about Linux, or any of its services. You simply assumed with that counter-example that I was insinuating Linux is a silver bullet compared to Windows. Quite frankly, I'm a little offended at that.
I'm also not happy with Linux vendors that ship disributions with unneccessary services open by default, either. That's just awful for security in Linux distributions that are supposed to be "user-friendly", where the user may be new and has no idea what sendmail is, let alone that it's compromised on a regular basis.
Users need to at least know it's important to patch and how to do it, otherwise it's useless to blame them because they couldn't have behaved any differently.
Beer certainly does produce some entertaining speeches, though.
Are you comparing a live hacker to a shoddily-written virus with a thuggish payload?
A lot more exploits are publicised for Linux than for Windows.
I don't find this anywhere near as reassuring as you seem to.
Oops. Hit submit too early.
Ports 1-1024 are your reserved ports. They're standard so there's no confusion, and any services where it would be a bad idea to let a user bind to the port are assigned numbers in this range as their standard ports.
As I said in example- POP3, where you would be entering authentication data. Or HTTP where your company's website resides and your reputation could be damaged by a malicious user hijacking port 80 to put up a defacement.
It's to stop a regular user from, say, binding to port 110 and grabbing user passwords with a fake POP3 session if for any reason you need to reload or take down your pop3 server.
At $350,000, you have a very interesting definition of free. ;)
by your reasoning, the RIAA is perfectly in the right in going after Napster et al, since they engendered a computing culture that promotes theft of service?
:-P
That's "copyright infringement," not "theft of service."
Copyright infringment is no less a bad thing, but calling it theft of service is just silly. You bent the example just a little bit too far to make your point, and it broke.
I've seen apt eat more than a few machines myself
I've never seen apt eat a machine. Of course, I also lay off the UNSTABLE branch because it's the UNSTABLE branch. This may or may not be related.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There's a design flaw in Windows Update that led to numerous people believing they were patched when in fact they were not.
Windows Update checks registry keys to see if you've applied a patch, rather than the files themselves. It's uncomfortably common to have a machine update the registry but for one reason or another fail to update the files. From that point on the user thinks they're protected and windowsupdate.com also tells them they are. That's one hole that still isn't fixed.
Other users can't patch even if they want to because the patches can interfere with normal operations and must be thoroughly tested first. Fixes really shouldn't break the systems they're supposed to fix, but they can and do.
Still more users just don't know enough to update regularly. These people are a menace to their neighbors on the net, but they've never been properly educated on the importance and the how of maintaining their security... and why would they? There's no incentive to tell them something that might drive to another platform.
Right- there's nothing stopping you from upgrading a mac platform. Saying that you can't is just misinformation.
But then, so is saying that macs require less support than PCs. Cringly doesn't seem to have any experience with Mac support in a large organization, or he wouldn't be making these statements.
They are not without their faults and they most certainly do have their fair share of trouble. In my experience (from a mixed Win/Mac environment), the number of support calls per Mac user is about on par with those per PC user each year.
I'm not sure how the different problems each platform has compare, though. Maybe others could chime in with their experiences.
note: I do have to agree with some people that Mac hardware is much more expensive than PC hardware for comparable tasks. This isn't the point at hand, however.
Ugh... I skipped right over "giga".
That's terabytes, not petabytes. Sorry.
Worst case, a 256mb CF card rated for 1 million writes being written to an average of twice a minute, with at least one cell being re-used on every single write, without a wear-leveller, will last about a year before the repeatedly re-used cell(s) die.
Just about every modern CF card has wear-levelling, though. They transparently remap their layout to spread writes out across all cells. The device they're attached to is presented with a virtual mapping of cells so that nothing appears to move; when in fact the boot block that looks to start at cell 0 may have actually moved to cell 42,000 the last time it was updated because those cells have experienced less wear.
You'll only go through one write cycle of the card's lifetime for every multiple of its capacity you write to the card. Even at 10% efficiency, this means a 256mb card will last until you've written approximately 25.6 petabytes to it in total across its lifetime.
I don't think I'd want to use CF for an active swap partition, but it should handle firewall logging duty just fine.
Doom III has monsters coming from everywhere, crawling along the walls/pipes, coming out of a panel on the floor, etc.
To be fair, Alien vs Predator for the PC already had the crawling monsters pouncing from overhangs and ventilation shafts. So did most games based on the "Alien" movies, for that matter...
The AI has thus far been pitiful, though. It consists of: "Charge at the player and bite & swipe with claws/tail, if you survive long enough to get that close."
And I'm going to make a patch where "wash_closet" is replaced with "frisbee".
...
What?
Of course, those are old GX-line Dell Optiplex machines. They're Intel-based uniprocessor workstations and lack things that help servers serve up pages quickly & correctly, like a 64bit/66mhz PCI bus, SCSI, RAID and ECC memory.
SCSI & RAID could possibly be installed, but on a University department's IT budget I don't see why they'd go to the expense when it may or may not help in some instances, and they could just grab a second box from storage/surplus.
Those two old clunkers combined don't even come close to a dual AMD MP 2600+ w/2GB DDR ram. The dual AMD would handle a static-page slashdotting of the described magnitude easily, bandwidth permitting.