The last time I had to deal with a computer so infested with spyware and crap that it would have taken most of a day to fix it, I just formatted the bastard and reinstalled windows. It's quicker and cleaner.
Lost data? Tough shit. Company policy is to save all important data on the server, not on the local hard drive. Workstations aren't backed up.
Less govenment money spent on paying companies to write custom software, which is nearly always over due and over budget, is less money wasted. That means less taxes. That means more money in the hands of consumers to spend. Which means more jobs.
You skipped basic economics in school, didn't you?
it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda,
How wrong you are. The current grand master of propoganda is Michael Moore, an American (unfortunately). He could teach a class called, "Propoganda 101, The Big Lie Through Creative Editing".
When we find corrupt judges and lawyers, we put them in jail. In the UN, the corrupt run things. Since all attempts to repair the UN by exposing the corruption and bringing the guilty to justice is thwarted by the UN itself, the only solution is for our President to kick them out of our damn country. Hell, I'd even vote for Kerry if he swore he would sign an executive order giving the UN 24 hours to get the fuck out.
Another "me too". I didn't even give my boss my cell phone number. No chance am I going to make it easy for him to contact me on off hours if there is no added benefit. I actually wouldn't mind being on call for emergencies if I was properly compensated for the extra effor.
I understand perfectly well what exactly the UN is for.
It's an organization run by the worst tyrants, fascists, and murderers in the world designed to extract the maximum amount of wealth from countries they say they are helping. Google on "oil-for-food scandal" for the most recent example.
Putting Sudan in on the human rights commission proves the UN doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights. Next we can expect the UN to put someone like Saddam in charge of a commission investigating genocide.
Oh, and stop trying to defend the UN by saying we don't understand why and what the UN was created. I do know the history of the UN. Who gives a fuck. What the UN stands for NOW is what is important. No matter what noble reason created the UN, it is now nothing but an "old boys" club for self-enrichment.
Proof? Take 10 seconds with google and you'll find proof, or must you wait until your government spoonfeeds you what you should know?
Typical. You and everyone else are quick to jump to conclusions about what kind of parent I am. I actually give her way more freedom than most parents would for a 13 year old girl. As she grows older and more mature, the proxy settings will be adjusted. Emotionally, however, there is a lot of bad shit she is not ready to deal with on her own.
Running squid is a compromise. I would prefer my wife or myself were around when she's browsing, but we can't be with her every moment. So we run squid and allow her reasonable unsupervised access. When we're at home, she can ask for a site to be unblocked. I've unblocked on several occassions.
I'm not blocking teen or women's health sites, and I'm not blocking political websites (except for some lunatic fringe places). I'm not blocking sites on sexuality (not even gay sexuality). I'm not blocking religious websites (except for one lunatic conspiracy theorist nut job foil-in-the-hat cult site).
As for a teens sexuality, I would prefer she learn about that from someplace besides hardcorewithdonkeys.com (I made this up, I don't actually know if it's real or not, nor do I wish to know).
I am no prude. Nudity does not bother me. If she wants to see nude pictures, fine with me. Hardcore, however, is out of the question. She's only 13, she's not ready for everything.
I know music is important. That's why I first asked her to stop downloading pirated music voluntarily. If she had simply stuck to legal downloads I wouldn't be blocking all music download sites. Now, everything is blocked and I will only open up sites if she asks and I have verified it is kosher.
Being a little smarter than the average websurfer, I set up squid+squidGuard and set my daughter's computer up to go through the Linux box. She could easily bypass this if she had ever taken the time to learn the basics about computing, but she has never shown any interest when I have offered to teach her. Doesn't really matter, in the next week or two I will be reconfiguring the entire home network to force everyone through the Linux box and use a transparent proxy system.
My proxy system enforces just a few basic rules:
IE is not allowed. Never ever. I'm not taking any chances with my network's security.
She loses internet access late at night. I got tired of telling her to shut down and go to bed every damn night, "just a few more minutes!" In her language a few more minutes == an hour.
Warez, porn, and hate sites are blocked. I don't think she'll go porn surfing on purpose, but she's a little quick to go to links without thinking about it. She's also too willing to believe fringe and conspiracy theories, but I think that's very typical of teenagers.
Music sharing programs are blocked. I told her to stop downloading pirated music as we couldn't afford an RIAA lawsuit, but she didn't listen to me, so now she can't even trade music when it's legal.
I told her straight out, if you think a blocked site is legit, just tell me and I'll see about unblocking it. I have blocked a few fringe science, religion, and political web sites. When she refused to discuss the contents with me, I blocked the sites. I was perfectly willing to leave them unblocked, but only if she was willing to discuss them rationally with my wife or myself.
You should switch to sonic.net if they are available in your area. Great service. No port blocking. Static IP. You can run a server.
They _will_ shut your ass off if you get infected and start spewing out spam or hitting other systems to infect. They'll at least try to call you first, but if they can't get in touch with anyone, they turn you off and wait for you to call.
Someday they may grow so big that they can no longer provide the wonderful customer service. That will suck.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
And that differs from what the Fundamentalist Christian fanatics want, how exactly?
The Christian types you are speaking of are a miniscule group of nut jobs that have already been denounced by Christian leaders throughout this country. On the other hand, the Muslim fundamentalists have yet to be denounced by their religious leaders. In fact, far too many of the Muslim religious leaders outright support the terrorists or offer up excuses for the murdering innocent civilians.
To put it in much simplier terms for the cognitively challenged: rejection versus acceptance.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
We propped Saddam up for a very long time...
No we didn't. A long time ago the U.S. provided some information to Saddam when he was at war with Iran. This was during the period when Iran was holding a few Americans hostage. So one instance of us helping Iraq in a rather minor role is considered propping him up?
After the first Gulf War, we certainly did NOT prop him up. We tried everything we could to get rid of him, but interference from Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and others via the UN prevented us from doing anything. During that time, Saddam did a little bit of "house cleaning" and murdered entire villages.
the sanctions we imposed on Iraq were quite atrocious
We didn't impose those sanctions, the U.N. imposed them. And why are you blaming the U.S. for something Saddam did? He's the one who caused the suffering. He's the one who withheld food and medicine from those children. After we realized Saddam was using the Oil-for-Food program to enrich himself and supply his military but not help the people those supplies were intended for, we decided it wasn't a good thing and put a stop to it.
I suggest you read up on the scandle going on this very moment. It turns out many high ranking UN officials were reaping millions in profits through bribery and skimming from the Oil-For-Food program. They are currently scrambling like cockroaches to cover it up, and that evil fucktard Kofi Annan is up to his neck in the corruption.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
You need more foil in your hat.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Yes, Saddam ignoring 19 resolutions is just one of the reasons to invade Iraq. The other reasons were damn good, too. Or do you think genocide is ok?
How is pointing out the facts gibberish?
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
people started realizing Bush was just using 9-11 as an excuse to advance an empire
You had an opportunity to make an excellent point about public discourse of a political subject. Unfortunately, you are unable to make any statement without going off into loony-toon moonbat-land.
Advance an empire? Give me a break. Since when do you had over control of a nation when you are advancing an empire?
If Bush wanted to advance an empire we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and used the excuse that they are the #1 source of terrorist funding (which is true). Or we would have invaded France. After finishing off France (I'd say about tea time), we could go after some other easy target like Canada or Mexico (both countries have substantial deposits of oil, after all).
Just a reminder. There was only a cease fire agreement with Saddam. He was was supposed to meet certain requirements to keep the cease fire in effect. After 19 UN resolutions demanding Iraq abide with the original agreement (all ignored), Bush had the good sense to realize that Saddam had no intentions of listening. Even the UN's own weapons inspectors said it was impossible to do their job because of Saddam's intentional obstructions.
France's ChIraq guaranteed there was no chance of anything but invasion when he swore France would veto any and all resolutions from the US. Now that we have all the Iraqi documents detailing what exactly was going on with the UN Oil-For-Food, we know that France interfered because they were profiting hugely from the deal, going so far as to directly violate UN resolutions by including weapons in the trades.
Yes, it was all about oil. It was all about the French getting oil.
Unless the UN (or Kerry) screws it up, Iraq is in the unique position of becoming the second democracy in the Middle East (after Israel), and the first Muslim one, at that. This will be a thorn in Saudi Arabia's side. People actually having a say about their own future? We can't have that! People who aren't raving lunatics who want to blow up school buses loaded with small children - oh my god!
Islam is at a fork in the road. One road, with Iraq leading the way, heads into the 21st century and practices tolerance for others. The other road, led by the Muslim fanatics, leads to destruction. We don't want to kill them, but when you have a choice between killing or being killed, I choose killing. Oh, in case you think I'm being excessive, I suggest you read exactly what the fanatics want. The cliff-notes version: forced conversion of all non-Muslims. Death to all who resist. The total destruction of the U.S. and Israel. Slavery for the wives and children of those who resist. Islam has been hijacked by hatemongers and fanatics. The tolerant members of that religion need to take it back - and soon.
I guarantee that some green, naderite, or democrate will mod me down as a Troll or Flamebait because they really hate it when someone points out the criminal activies of anyone but the United States.
The memory is already in the bottom. BTW, how the hell do you open this thing!? I removed all the screws (that I could find) and it was still rather tightly locked together? Am I being to cautions by not "snapping" it apart?
I'm sure that helped stop the random shutdowns, but I don't see how that would fix the problem of shutting off 3 seconds after turning it on. Actually, it's more like 1 second.
HP needs to recall the entire zt1xxx line. We purchased a zt1130 about 2 years ago and have been plagued with problems from the very beginning.
The battery stopped holding a charge at about 11 months (my own fault for not returning it within the 1 year warranty). The hard drive failed at 13 months. The maker's warranty (IBM) on the drive was three years, but HP only honored one year.
From the very beginning it would randomly turn off for no apparent reason. Now it's completely dead. Hit the power button, and about 3 seconds later it turns off. We can't afford the repair cost and we can't afford a replacement.
I will NEVER purchase another Hewlett-Packard product ever again.
I stuck that in this morning as a quickie fix. Later on I will redo it to allow specific browsers and deny all others. I might even modify it to redirect to the FireFox download page instead of displaying an error.
It doesn't matter if it is hate speech or not. A person has a right to state their beliefs.
How about this, "people who commit adultery will burn in hell." There really isn't all that much difference between this statement and the one made by the student. Is this hate speech? Does it matter?
p.s. That is just an example, I don't actually believe in hell.
Seems!? Are you kidding me? The United States government doesn't have a choice. Our Constitution doesn't allow them to limit hate speech. The slippery slope becomes a cliff far too quickly. First you let the government ban hate speech, then you redefine hate speech to "anything that disagrees with the P.C. stance."
Far fetched? Not a bit. It's been done. A kid in a school said, "I think homosexuals are going to hell," during a classroom discussion. He was expelled for hate speech. While I disagree with his beliefs, I wouldn't call it hate speech, but the school did.
The U.S. government can NOT ban hate speech. They can arrest people for "inciting to riot" or a host of other criminal offenses related to speech, but they they can't impose a blanket ban.
Europe needs to realize that, unlike them, we take our Constitution dead serious and don't allow compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
The last time I had to deal with a computer so infested with spyware and crap that it would have taken most of a day to fix it, I just formatted the bastard and reinstalled windows. It's quicker and cleaner.
Lost data? Tough shit. Company policy is to save all important data on the server, not on the local hard drive. Workstations aren't backed up.
Less govenment money spent on paying companies to write custom software, which is nearly always over due and over budget, is less money wasted. That means less taxes. That means more money in the hands of consumers to spend. Which means more jobs.
You skipped basic economics in school, didn't you?
When we find corrupt judges and lawyers, we put them in jail. In the UN, the corrupt run things. Since all attempts to repair the UN by exposing the corruption and bringing the guilty to justice is thwarted by the UN itself, the only solution is for our President to kick them out of our damn country. Hell, I'd even vote for Kerry if he swore he would sign an executive order giving the UN 24 hours to get the fuck out.
Another "me too". I didn't even give my boss my cell phone number. No chance am I going to make it easy for him to contact me on off hours if there is no added benefit. I actually wouldn't mind being on call for emergencies if I was properly compensated for the extra effor.
I understand perfectly well what exactly the UN is for.
It's an organization run by the worst tyrants, fascists, and murderers in the world designed to extract the maximum amount of wealth from countries they say they are helping. Google on "oil-for-food scandal" for the most recent example.
Putting Sudan in on the human rights commission proves the UN doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights. Next we can expect the UN to put someone like Saddam in charge of a commission investigating genocide.
Oh, and stop trying to defend the UN by saying we don't understand why and what the UN was created. I do know the history of the UN. Who gives a fuck. What the UN stands for NOW is what is important. No matter what noble reason created the UN, it is now nothing but an "old boys" club for self-enrichment.
Proof? Take 10 seconds with google and you'll find proof, or must you wait until your government spoonfeeds you what you should know?
The UN outlawing spam will work as well as the UN law outlawing genocide.
Typical. You and everyone else are quick to jump to conclusions about what kind of parent I am. I actually give her way more freedom than most parents would for a 13 year old girl. As she grows older and more mature, the proxy settings will be adjusted. Emotionally, however, there is a lot of bad shit she is not ready to deal with on her own.
Running squid is a compromise. I would prefer my wife or myself were around when she's browsing, but we can't be with her every moment. So we run squid and allow her reasonable unsupervised access. When we're at home, she can ask for a site to be unblocked. I've unblocked on several occassions.
I'm not blocking teen or women's health sites, and I'm not blocking political websites (except for some lunatic fringe places). I'm not blocking sites on sexuality (not even gay sexuality). I'm not blocking religious websites (except for one lunatic conspiracy theorist nut job foil-in-the-hat cult site).
As for a teens sexuality, I would prefer she learn about that from someplace besides hardcorewithdonkeys.com (I made this up, I don't actually know if it's real or not, nor do I wish to know).
I am no prude. Nudity does not bother me. If she wants to see nude pictures, fine with me. Hardcore, however, is out of the question. She's only 13, she's not ready for everything.
I know music is important. That's why I first asked her to stop downloading pirated music voluntarily. If she had simply stuck to legal downloads I wouldn't be blocking all music download sites. Now, everything is blocked and I will only open up sites if she asks and I have verified it is kosher.
Ooh, look! A troll! And not a very good one, either!
My proxy system enforces just a few basic rules:
I told her straight out, if you think a blocked site is legit, just tell me and I'll see about unblocking it. I have blocked a few fringe science, religion, and political web sites. When she refused to discuss the contents with me, I blocked the sites. I was perfectly willing to leave them unblocked, but only if she was willing to discuss them rationally with my wife or myself.
Oops. You're canadian. No chance you can get sonic.net. Sucks to be you.
You should switch to sonic.net if they are available in your area. Great service. No port blocking. Static IP. You can run a server.
They _will_ shut your ass off if you get infected and start spewing out spam or hitting other systems to infect. They'll at least try to call you first, but if they can't get in touch with anyone, they turn you off and wait for you to call.
Someday they may grow so big that they can no longer provide the wonderful customer service. That will suck.
The Christian types you are speaking of are a miniscule group of nut jobs that have already been denounced by Christian leaders throughout this country. On the other hand, the Muslim fundamentalists have yet to be denounced by their religious leaders. In fact, far too many of the Muslim religious leaders outright support the terrorists or offer up excuses for the murdering innocent civilians.
To put it in much simplier terms for the cognitively challenged: rejection versus acceptance.
No we didn't. A long time ago the U.S. provided some information to Saddam when he was at war with Iran. This was during the period when Iran was holding a few Americans hostage. So one instance of us helping Iraq in a rather minor role is considered propping him up?
After the first Gulf War, we certainly did NOT prop him up. We tried everything we could to get rid of him, but interference from Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and others via the UN prevented us from doing anything. During that time, Saddam did a little bit of "house cleaning" and murdered entire villages.
We didn't impose those sanctions, the U.N. imposed them. And why are you blaming the U.S. for something Saddam did? He's the one who caused the suffering. He's the one who withheld food and medicine from those children. After we realized Saddam was using the Oil-for-Food program to enrich himself and supply his military but not help the people those supplies were intended for, we decided it wasn't a good thing and put a stop to it.I suggest you read up on the scandle going on this very moment. It turns out many high ranking UN officials were reaping millions in profits through bribery and skimming from the Oil-For-Food program. They are currently scrambling like cockroaches to cover it up, and that evil fucktard Kofi Annan is up to his neck in the corruption.
You need more foil in your hat.
Yes, Saddam ignoring 19 resolutions is just one of the reasons to invade Iraq. The other reasons were damn good, too. Or do you think genocide is ok?
How is pointing out the facts gibberish?
You had an opportunity to make an excellent point about public discourse of a political subject. Unfortunately, you are unable to make any statement without going off into loony-toon moonbat-land.
Advance an empire? Give me a break. Since when do you had over control of a nation when you are advancing an empire?
If Bush wanted to advance an empire we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and used the excuse that they are the #1 source of terrorist funding (which is true). Or we would have invaded France. After finishing off France (I'd say about tea time), we could go after some other easy target like Canada or Mexico (both countries have substantial deposits of oil, after all).
Just a reminder. There was only a cease fire agreement with Saddam. He was was supposed to meet certain requirements to keep the cease fire in effect. After 19 UN resolutions demanding Iraq abide with the original agreement (all ignored), Bush had the good sense to realize that Saddam had no intentions of listening. Even the UN's own weapons inspectors said it was impossible to do their job because of Saddam's intentional obstructions.
France's ChIraq guaranteed there was no chance of anything but invasion when he swore France would veto any and all resolutions from the US. Now that we have all the Iraqi documents detailing what exactly was going on with the UN Oil-For-Food, we know that France interfered because they were profiting hugely from the deal, going so far as to directly violate UN resolutions by including weapons in the trades.
Yes, it was all about oil. It was all about the French getting oil.
Unless the UN (or Kerry) screws it up, Iraq is in the unique position of becoming the second democracy in the Middle East (after Israel), and the first Muslim one, at that. This will be a thorn in Saudi Arabia's side. People actually having a say about their own future? We can't have that! People who aren't raving lunatics who want to blow up school buses loaded with small children - oh my god!
Islam is at a fork in the road. One road, with Iraq leading the way, heads into the 21st century and practices tolerance for others. The other road, led by the Muslim fanatics, leads to destruction. We don't want to kill them, but when you have a choice between killing or being killed, I choose killing. Oh, in case you think I'm being excessive, I suggest you read exactly what the fanatics want. The cliff-notes version: forced conversion of all non-Muslims. Death to all who resist. The total destruction of the U.S. and Israel. Slavery for the wives and children of those who resist. Islam has been hijacked by hatemongers and fanatics. The tolerant members of that religion need to take it back - and soon.
I guarantee that some green, naderite, or democrate will mod me down as a Troll or Flamebait because they really hate it when someone points out the criminal activies of anyone but the United States.
The memory is already in the bottom. BTW, how the hell do you open this thing!? I removed all the screws (that I could find) and it was still rather tightly locked together? Am I being to cautions by not "snapping" it apart?
I'm sure that helped stop the random shutdowns, but I don't see how that would fix the problem of shutting off 3 seconds after turning it on. Actually, it's more like 1 second.
HP needs to recall the entire zt1xxx line. We purchased a zt1130 about 2 years ago and have been plagued with problems from the very beginning.
The battery stopped holding a charge at about 11 months (my own fault for not returning it within the 1 year warranty). The hard drive failed at 13 months. The maker's warranty (IBM) on the drive was three years, but HP only honored one year.
From the very beginning it would randomly turn off for no apparent reason. Now it's completely dead. Hit the power button, and about 3 seconds later it turns off. We can't afford the repair cost and we can't afford a replacement.
I will NEVER purchase another Hewlett-Packard product ever again.
Just add this simple rule to squid.conf:
deny_info ERR_BAD_BROWSER
acl BadBrowser browser MSIE
http_access deny BadBrowser
I stuck that in this morning as a quickie fix. Later on I will redo it to allow specific browsers and deny all others. I might even modify it to redirect to the FireFox download page instead of displaying an error.
You missed the point, I see.
It doesn't matter if it is hate speech or not. A person has a right to state their beliefs.
How about this, "people who commit adultery will burn in hell." There really isn't all that much difference between this statement and the one made by the student. Is this hate speech? Does it matter?
p.s. That is just an example, I don't actually believe in hell.
Seems!? Are you kidding me? The United States government doesn't have a choice. Our Constitution doesn't allow them to limit hate speech. The slippery slope becomes a cliff far too quickly. First you let the government ban hate speech, then you redefine hate speech to "anything that disagrees with the P.C. stance."
Far fetched? Not a bit. It's been done. A kid in a school said, "I think homosexuals are going to hell," during a classroom discussion. He was expelled for hate speech. While I disagree with his beliefs, I wouldn't call it hate speech, but the school did.
The U.S. government can NOT ban hate speech. They can arrest people for "inciting to riot" or a host of other criminal offenses related to speech, but they they can't impose a blanket ban.
Europe needs to realize that, unlike them, we take our Constitution dead serious and don't allow compromise.
I was with SBC for several years. My original contract expired long ago.