I was thinking the same thing. One of the most underreported stories going right now is about the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). You never hear about it in the mainstream media because it is a movement to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, to hedge any attempts by activist judges to legislate otherwise.
You're not hearing about it because it stands a great chance at being successful, and because it has broad support across party lines, racial lines, and class lines. The media doesn't want you to know that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage, so they just don't report on the FMA.
This doesn't correct the problem of users editing documents that they open from their email, which gets saved in some Temp file somewhere. I have users that do this all of the time, and it gets pretty frustrating. I agree that it would be nice to FORCE users to save in a specific location, rather than just PROD them that way.
I was thinking the same thing. The article said something about 90% accuracy...isn't 10% inaccuracy kind of concerning when you're talking about air traffic control??
Actually, I've been known to trade pretty heavily on Etree, and have a couple of thousand hours of Phish, Dead, Umphreys, etc on CD. Quite a bit of that is FLAC, and has been for a while now. FLAC is traded pretty heavily on Etree. I'm not sure what you classify as "nobody", but I can point you to a whole lot of "somebodys" using FLAC.
This is a ridiculous statement to say the least, and an obvious sign of ignorance. If all you're doing is patching servers and paying attention to vulnerability reports, then you wouldn't even know if you DID get hacked. Real security requires a layered approach, one of those layers being intrusion detection. This alone can be a full-time job. It is this simplistic-style thinking that continues to make the Internet such a dangerous place, and contributes to my inability to get any significant amount of funding for security-related projects. If all I have to do is patch servers and watch vuln reports, then why should I spend money on a firewall, IDS, training, a security policy, etc, etc, etc. I could write an entire book just on why that statement was dumb...but this post will have to suffice.
Re:Defending Windows 2000?
on
Special Ops
·
· Score: 1
or unplugging. Although I guess behind a nice, stateful iptables firewall it wouldn't be TOO bad.
So your creation is the result of a series of random, uncontrolled events. Therefore, your brain is the result of such random, uncontrolled events. How then can you possibly trust ANY thought that your brain has, including the idea that there is no God? That's like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama. Atheism is ridiculous, and it takes MUCH more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.
You want proof? Look at Saul, who later became Paul in the New Testament of the Bible. There is lots of historical evidence that Paul existed and that the accounts of his actions in the Bible are historically accurate. How is this proof, you ask? His changed life. He went from Saul, persecutor and slayer of Christians, to Paul, martyr for Jesus Christ and author of a large portion of the New Testament.
You can bash my faith, bash my religion, and tell me I'm foolish. You can tell me I'm naive and uneducated. You can tell every Christian on the planet the same thing. But what you can't do is take away my experience. I have met Jesus Christ in ways and places that your ignorance will not allow you to go. I feel sorry for you, I pray for you, and I weep for your soul. That's the real problem. If you're right, I'm out nothing. I've enjoyed my life and lived it the way that I wanted to. If I'm right and you're wrong, you lose. You spend eternity in hell and I live out eternity in heaven.
Atheists, Agnostics, etc are not really that way because they BELIEVE what they say. They're rejecting truth based on their own self-absorption. Given the above argument, you are either a) a complete idiot, or b) too selfish and fatalistic to consider eternity. Those are the only two options. Eternity is not something worth gambling with.
Yes, I know I'll get -1, Flamebait. As an aside, I find it pretty irritating that slashdotters can express any view except the Christian without being called a troll. If you post something that is pro-evolution you may have creationists argue with you, but that's about it. If a creationist posts something pro-creation they are called a troll...simply for expressing their view. It's immature and intolerant...and coming from people who are supposed to tolerant and think Christians are intolerant fascists...it's hypocrisy.
The bible is re-edited and re-translated re-tellings of ancient oral myths...
I was going to let this go, and not start "this argument" again, but I can't let you state that as fact when it most certainly is not. You choose to have faith in the fact that the Bible is a bunch of myths...that's fine. Please do not state that as fact, though. I assure it takes MUCH more faith for you to believe that than it does for me to believe that it is the written Word of God.
RTFA...it has nothing to do with your trial period. Your rental availability is based on the account activity of the last billing period. For example, if you only rented one movie last month, then this month you would have good rental availability. If you rented a lot last month, then this month you would have crappy rental availability.
I think it has more to do with the fact that people who are renting a lot are obviously watching more movies. Therefore, the chances that they'll find another movie that they like if the one they REALLY want is not available are pretty good. However, if you only rent sporadically, then the chances that you are going to get frustrated and terminate your service if the movies you want aren't available are pretty good.
My first reaction to this article was that Netflix was way off the mark. However, if you really look at it it makes sense. They are keeping the people who are most at risk for cancelling the happiest. Those people who rent a lot of movies no matter what are less of a cancel-risk, so Netflix isn't as vigilant about making sure they get their first choices right away.
In fact, many make it a point to tell me that they use that password for everything.
I always find this particularly amusing. It's not bad enough that you're dishing out your password left and right, but you also have to make it a point to let everyone know that you use the same password for everything. I see this all the time. What compels someone to do this??
If the ex-con screws up, all you do is make a phone call and he's back in the joint in an hour.
This reasoning is flawed beyond belief. Who cares if he gets caught and punished after the fact?? Sure, it makes nice revenge, and who wouldn't want to see someone who screwed them over go to jail? However, if it's after the fact HE ALREADY HAS YOUR DATA. What did he do with it? Who did he sell it to? What did he put on your network? Do you know how many man-hours and resources it takes to clean up after an intrusion? Especially one that went undetected for any period of time at all (which is most likely the case when the intrusion came from within). It would take days, if not weeks, to clean up after a mess like that. You're talking about a person whom you hired to do you security...which means he already had the "keys to the kingdom" so to speak. This is a security administrator's worst nightmare. It's the one intrusion there is almost no way to defend against (I say almost because you can mitigate some of the risk by not hiring ex-hackers;). The amount of damage he could do is mind-boggling...as is the amount of cleanup that would be necessary to fix something like this. Hey, if you don't mind risking that on YOUR network that's fine with me. Maybe you can pay me a couple thousand dollars a day to help you clean up the mess. But keep Mitnick and any other "reformed" black hat the hell away from my network.
Breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. While you may not agree with the laws in place, you are assuming a certain amount of responsibility when you break them. I speed all the time, as I'm sure most of us do. When I speed I am well aware of the risk that I may get caught and have to pay a ticket. I weigh the risk against the benefit, and speed to my heart's content.
Mitnick broke the law. You're right, he didn't kill anyone or molest any small children or anything. But he did break the law, and there are consequences of that. A significant consequence is not being trusted in the infosec industry. The data that is being protected on these networks is just too important to gamble on someone who may or may not have "turned over a new leaf." Especially when there are more than enough excellent professionals with clean records out there.
I also like the point that allowing Mitnick to work in this industry only encourages the generation coming up now to violate the law. Or, if you think that's a stretch (which I don't), the fact that we can attempt to dissuade the younger generation from becoming black hats by making it clear that there is no place for them in the infosec industry. Whether or not Mitnick or any other black hat is qualified...we should use this opportunity to send a message that crime really doesn't pay (corny, I know).
Actually, there's a GREAT reason...to force the company into actually DOING something about the insecurity of their product. Noone (well, at least I don't) wants people to rob universities blind by stealing cokes and impersonating students. But if that's what has to happen for AT&T to begin making a secure product, then I would rather have the campus take a loss now than continue to take increasingly more significant losses over the next however-many years.
How does a post starting out "Hello. Stupid" get modded Insightful? The mere fact that the author resorted to name-calling makes this post anything BUT insightful.
I consider it much more 'humane' to let me keep my money because I work for it rather than dishing out free health care to a bunch of people who are too damn lazy to go get a job. The U.S. is moving more and more toward the liberal social policies of Canada, and I find that to be a true atrocity. I made my money, not you, not anyone else. I work for what I have and frankly I don't really give a crap about the bum down the street who lost his job because he wouldn't stop coming to work drunk. I'm sympathetic to people who genuinely are just having a 'run of bad luck' or whatever. But that is such a small fraction of people it's ridiculous. The majority of people living in what we in the U.S. consider poverty are there as a result of their own laziness and lack of ambition. Yes, I think it is much more humane to make them pay for their damn health care. Maybe that will motivate them to get off of their asses and join the workforce like the rest of us.
In an attempt to avoid the inevitable flames, I'm talking about the poor in the U.S. I'm not naive enough to think that it is not COMPLETELY different in a lot of underdeveloped countries. Also, I DO believe that some reform needs to happen in our healthcare system, because consumers are taking it in the rear. Enough said...FLAME ON!
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing. One of the most underreported stories going right now is about the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). You never hear about it in the mainstream media because it is a movement to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, to hedge any attempts by activist judges to legislate otherwise.
You're not hearing about it because it stands a great chance at being successful, and because it has broad support across party lines, racial lines, and class lines. The media doesn't want you to know that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage, so they just don't report on the FMA.
This doesn't correct the problem of users editing documents that they open from their email, which gets saved in some Temp file somewhere. I have users that do this all of the time, and it gets pretty frustrating. I agree that it would be nice to FORCE users to save in a specific location, rather than just PROD them that way.
I was thinking the same thing. The article said something about 90% accuracy...isn't 10% inaccuracy kind of concerning when you're talking about air traffic control??
Lest we forget that ANYONE who makes ANY money off of ANYTHING must be evil and their motives must be solely to continue to make more money.
Recycling? What the heck is that?
Actually, I've been known to trade pretty heavily on Etree, and have a couple of thousand hours of Phish, Dead, Umphreys, etc on CD. Quite a bit of that is FLAC, and has been for a while now. FLAC is traded pretty heavily on Etree. I'm not sure what you classify as "nobody", but I can point you to a whole lot of "somebodys" using FLAC.
SCO == Microsoft
Competant admins simply do not get hacked.
This is a ridiculous statement to say the least, and an obvious sign of ignorance. If all you're doing is patching servers and paying attention to vulnerability reports, then you wouldn't even know if you DID get hacked. Real security requires a layered approach, one of those layers being intrusion detection. This alone can be a full-time job. It is this simplistic-style thinking that continues to make the Internet such a dangerous place, and contributes to my inability to get any significant amount of funding for security-related projects. If all I have to do is patch servers and watch vuln reports, then why should I spend money on a firewall, IDS, training, a security policy, etc, etc, etc. I could write an entire book just on why that statement was dumb...but this post will have to suffice.
or unplugging. Although I guess behind a nice, stateful iptables firewall it wouldn't be TOO bad.
given unreasonable amounts of work
Posting on Slashdot is work?
Again, why do you feel sorry for me?
Because if I'm right...there are consequences for your beliefs...grave ones.
Actually, Creationists would wonder where you got that flask from?
Because his opinion is that of a Creationist he's a troll? What are you 12?
Atheism is the only true path.
So your creation is the result of a series of random, uncontrolled events. Therefore, your brain is the result of such random, uncontrolled events. How then can you possibly trust ANY thought that your brain has, including the idea that there is no God? That's like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama. Atheism is ridiculous, and it takes MUCH more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.
You want proof? Look at Saul, who later became Paul in the New Testament of the Bible. There is lots of historical evidence that Paul existed and that the accounts of his actions in the Bible are historically accurate. How is this proof, you ask? His changed life. He went from Saul, persecutor and slayer of Christians, to Paul, martyr for Jesus Christ and author of a large portion of the New Testament.
You can bash my faith, bash my religion, and tell me I'm foolish. You can tell me I'm naive and uneducated. You can tell every Christian on the planet the same thing. But what you can't do is take away my experience. I have met Jesus Christ in ways and places that your ignorance will not allow you to go. I feel sorry for you, I pray for you, and I weep for your soul. That's the real problem. If you're right, I'm out nothing. I've enjoyed my life and lived it the way that I wanted to. If I'm right and you're wrong, you lose. You spend eternity in hell and I live out eternity in heaven.
Atheists, Agnostics, etc are not really that way because they BELIEVE what they say. They're rejecting truth based on their own self-absorption. Given the above argument, you are either a) a complete idiot, or b) too selfish and fatalistic to consider eternity. Those are the only two options. Eternity is not something worth gambling with.
Yes, I know I'll get -1, Flamebait. As an aside, I find it pretty irritating that slashdotters can express any view except the Christian without being called a troll. If you post something that is pro-evolution you may have creationists argue with you, but that's about it. If a creationist posts something pro-creation they are called a troll...simply for expressing their view. It's immature and intolerant...and coming from people who are supposed to tolerant and think Christians are intolerant fascists...it's hypocrisy.
Catholics believe in purgatory. I am not Catholic.
The bible is re-edited and re-translated re-tellings of ancient oral myths...
I was going to let this go, and not start "this argument" again, but I can't let you state that as fact when it most certainly is not. You choose to have faith in the fact that the Bible is a bunch of myths...that's fine. Please do not state that as fact, though. I assure it takes MUCH more faith for you to believe that than it does for me to believe that it is the written Word of God.
RTFA...it has nothing to do with your trial period. Your rental availability is based on the account activity of the last billing period. For example, if you only rented one movie last month, then this month you would have good rental availability. If you rented a lot last month, then this month you would have crappy rental availability.
I think it has more to do with the fact that people who are renting a lot are obviously watching more movies. Therefore, the chances that they'll find another movie that they like if the one they REALLY want is not available are pretty good. However, if you only rent sporadically, then the chances that you are going to get frustrated and terminate your service if the movies you want aren't available are pretty good.
My first reaction to this article was that Netflix was way off the mark. However, if you really look at it it makes sense. They are keeping the people who are most at risk for cancelling the happiest. Those people who rent a lot of movies no matter what are less of a cancel-risk, so Netflix isn't as vigilant about making sure they get their first choices right away.
In fact, many make it a point to tell me that they use that password for everything.
I always find this particularly amusing. It's not bad enough that you're dishing out your password left and right, but you also have to make it a point to let everyone know that you use the same password for everything. I see this all the time. What compels someone to do this??
No, but it means that certain people may not trust me to drive their kids around town. Granted, that's an extreme example, but so was yours.
If the ex-con screws up, all you do is make a phone call and he's back in the joint in an hour.
;). The amount of damage he could do is mind-boggling...as is the amount of cleanup that would be necessary to fix something like this. Hey, if you don't mind risking that on YOUR network that's fine with me. Maybe you can pay me a couple thousand dollars a day to help you clean up the mess. But keep Mitnick and any other "reformed" black hat the hell away from my network.
This reasoning is flawed beyond belief. Who cares if he gets caught and punished after the fact?? Sure, it makes nice revenge, and who wouldn't want to see someone who screwed them over go to jail? However, if it's after the fact HE ALREADY HAS YOUR DATA. What did he do with it? Who did he sell it to? What did he put on your network? Do you know how many man-hours and resources it takes to clean up after an intrusion? Especially one that went undetected for any period of time at all (which is most likely the case when the intrusion came from within). It would take days, if not weeks, to clean up after a mess like that. You're talking about a person whom you hired to do you security...which means he already had the "keys to the kingdom" so to speak. This is a security administrator's worst nightmare. It's the one intrusion there is almost no way to defend against (I say almost because you can mitigate some of the risk by not hiring ex-hackers
Breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. While you may not agree with the laws in place, you are assuming a certain amount of responsibility when you break them. I speed all the time, as I'm sure most of us do. When I speed I am well aware of the risk that I may get caught and have to pay a ticket. I weigh the risk against the benefit, and speed to my heart's content.
Mitnick broke the law. You're right, he didn't kill anyone or molest any small children or anything. But he did break the law, and there are consequences of that. A significant consequence is not being trusted in the infosec industry. The data that is being protected on these networks is just too important to gamble on someone who may or may not have "turned over a new leaf." Especially when there are more than enough excellent professionals with clean records out there.
I also like the point that allowing Mitnick to work in this industry only encourages the generation coming up now to violate the law. Or, if you think that's a stretch (which I don't), the fact that we can attempt to dissuade the younger generation from becoming black hats by making it clear that there is no place for them in the infosec industry. Whether or not Mitnick or any other black hat is qualified...we should use this opportunity to send a message that crime really doesn't pay (corny, I know).
Actually, there's a GREAT reason...to force the company into actually DOING something about the insecurity of their product. Noone (well, at least I don't) wants people to rob universities blind by stealing cokes and impersonating students. But if that's what has to happen for AT&T to begin making a secure product, then I would rather have the campus take a loss now than continue to take increasingly more significant losses over the next however-many years.
How does a post starting out "Hello. Stupid" get modded Insightful? The mere fact that the author resorted to name-calling makes this post anything BUT insightful.
I consider it much more 'humane' to let me keep my money because I work for it rather than dishing out free health care to a bunch of people who are too damn lazy to go get a job. The U.S. is moving more and more toward the liberal social policies of Canada, and I find that to be a true atrocity. I made my money, not you, not anyone else. I work for what I have and frankly I don't really give a crap about the bum down the street who lost his job because he wouldn't stop coming to work drunk. I'm sympathetic to people who genuinely are just having a 'run of bad luck' or whatever. But that is such a small fraction of people it's ridiculous. The majority of people living in what we in the U.S. consider poverty are there as a result of their own laziness and lack of ambition. Yes, I think it is much more humane to make them pay for their damn health care. Maybe that will motivate them to get off of their asses and join the workforce like the rest of us.
In an attempt to avoid the inevitable flames, I'm talking about the poor in the U.S. I'm not naive enough to think that it is not COMPLETELY different in a lot of underdeveloped countries. Also, I DO believe that some reform needs to happen in our healthcare system, because consumers are taking it in the rear. Enough said...FLAME ON!
don't you mean "optional"? Never really know for sure when you can't see the source...