There's a problem with the point you're making: IE6 is four years old. While SP2 was released last year, this version is applicable ONLY to WinXP SP2--all other platforms are stuck at IE6 SP1, which was released almost exactly three years ago. Everything since then has supposedly been security fixes and the like.
It's not a moving target--it really IS supposed to be mature code. There's a far cry between this and something under active development!
People are opposed to it because the effect (if not the intent, but really the intent too) is to disenfranchise the kinds of people who don't have driver's licenses and for whom buying a replacement ID is an onerous burden, namely the poor, which is to say to a great extent, the black residents of the state.
A non-driver ID costs $20 for five years, or $35 for ten. That's $3.50-$4.00 per year. This is NOT an "onerous burden." This is four cans of soda. What's more, is they offer an ID card "for voting purposes only." Cost: free. Tempest, meet teapot.
For god's sake, Jimmy Carter is on board with this. While I often disagree with the former president's politics, I have no doubt about the man's integrity and honest desire to do the right thing. I would certainly trust him to not craft a system that disenfranchises poor voters.
Ad implements ldap v3 anyhow, so with a few minor modifications (like schema updates) or tweaks in the source of the application, anything that works with ldap can work with active directory.
Right, that was my point--putting in OpenLDAP would just be reinventing the wheel with the added issue of now having to manage both it and AD.
You need a central configuration repository to store the email accounts, their passwords, etc. OpenLDAP is perfect for this, and you can replicate it out for scalability. Be prepared to learn about LDAP schemas.
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but given that he's migrating from Exchange, it's fairly likely that they're already an Active Directory shop... it doesn't make sense to abandon it for OpenLDAP, especially given that they're almost certainly windows only on the desktop and will still need AD even if they ditch Exchange.
And why generate it at all rather than just use the first two characters of the domain name?
Because there are a thousand times as many domains that start with the letter T than with the letter X. A hash gives you a far more even distribution than just using the first few characters of the domain.
so crackers don't get to guess where other people's mail lives.
I'm fairly certain we're talking for performance reasons here. 20k files in a single directory==slooooow, so you break them up into reasonably well distributed chunks. As far as security through obscurity goes, it dies with the following simple sequence of commands:
If they did this, China would just block the IP of Google's cache. I'm sorry, I would do the same thing if I were in Google's shoes.
Whether or not it makes good business sense (I agree that it does) is immaterial to this argument. Aiding a dictatorial government in oppressing its people (by denying them access to information critical of that government) most certainly does NOT fit my understanding of the phrase "don't be evil."
There are already buildings throughout the world with parking on the ground floor. Why would a prevalence of them make them more attractive as a target? Does building more skyscrapers increase the chance of another 9/11? It just doesn't follow.
I'm not saying that I agree with the logic, but it's a fact that "anti-terror" thinking dominates the actions of governmental organizations in the US these days.
They build tank traps in front of government buildings. Underground parking? Forget about it.
While individuals may choose to build as the grandparent suggests, on any large scale it would have to be forced by government action--writing it into the local building codes, for example. And these days, there is absolutely no chance of something like that passing the terrorism bar.
Another thought I had is rebuilding the new buildings so that the first floors are parking only, designed specifically to take flooding without major damage.
That will never happen in this day and age, given current security concerns. Two words: "car bomb."
I really can't imagine it being profitable for them to buy thousands of a song to increase its ranking. Remember that Apple keeps a cut of the profits. Buying the songs wouldn't cost them nothing.
You're incorrect--what the record company will do is bill the artist for this as a "marketing expense" thus it really DOES cost them nothing.
though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).
As the post you replied to noted, Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for stem cell research. That being the case, I can't help but wonder what "halt in federal funding" you are referring to?
Theses days you can't buy anything smaller than a 60/80GB unless it's used.
If you're willing to buy a couple of million units of something "obsolete" you can have just about anything that you want. Ford would happily start making Model-Ts again if someone was going to buy five million of the things.
For me to do the trimming, I would have to buy clippers, buy a ladder and then try and climb and hope I don't break my neck. Since I am putting myself at risk at climbing the ladder, that is qualified.
Being afraid of the ladder will not rise to the court's definition of "unsafe." What's even more amusing is that if you make this claim in court, you will be purjuring yourself--you've stated here that the real issue is that you don't want to be bothered because it's his tree. It's not a safety issue at all.
FWIW, I tend to agree with you as far as "the right thing to do" goes--your neighbor most certainly SHOULD resolve the problem, and the fact that it's made it to the stage of legal action is pretty damn sad. That said, what's right isn't always what's legal.
If the problem cannot be resolved by agreement or by your safe removal of the objectionable growth, the courts will compel a landowner to trim or remove trees that encroach on your land.
This rather neatly kills your "why should *I* have to do it, it's HIS tree" position.
Oh whoops, I should've clarified: prisoners of war are not subject to courts-martial. They are subject to trial by civilian court or a specially appointed war crimes court. Courts-martial is reserved for service men and woman only in the military where the courts-martial is taking place, never for POWs. It is assumed that during a time of war your typical grunt, while he might hold valuable intel, cannot be held responsible for actions committed which do not violate the rules of war.
You have this backward. It is illegal to try a prisoner of war in a civillian court--unless the detaining party also tries its soldiers in civil courts. Also, "laws of war" don't enter into it: you can try a POW for any offense your own soldiers are subject to, and you must sentence them as you would one of your own soldiers. Up to and including the death penalty. The one thing you cannot do is reduce the prisoner in rank, or strip them of medals or qualification badges.
The important part, by the way, is that the court martial be fair--the accused is entitled to a defense inclusive of the help of one of his own side, an interpreter (if required), and an officer to defend him of his own choosing. A 'Protecting Party' (the International Red Cross, pretty much, though these days the UN would probably also be acceptable) must be informed if judicial proceedings are initiated against a POW, and must be allowed to attend the trial to ensure its fairness.
From the 3rd Geneva Convention:
Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
Article 85
Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.
There's more, but I don't see the need to inject yet more text into this discussion. You can read the test for you self at the UN Commissioner for Human Rights website.
If your clients run Autodesk CAD software, then so should you, and that will make a huge dent in your bottom line. Our clients stagnated on AutoCAD 2000 for years, then just this month decided (and these are fortune-500 retailers, mind you) "oh, lets upgrade to AutoCAD 2006, so should YOU"...
Their reasoning behind this was pretty sound--Autodesk EOLed acad2000 based products in january of this year. That means no support and (worse yet from a financial standpoint) acad2000 products no longer qualify for upgrade pricing. Acad2002 goes EOL in January of next year, so expect another cycle of your customers upgrading by then.
It's like a contract with a dead guy - the living party is no longer bound.
Contracts don't simply become null and void if one party dies (unless, of course, the contract specifies so.) The estate of the deceased is still bound by the contract terms, as is the other party to the deal. Example: You and I sign a real estate contract that says I'm going to buy your house for $500k. If I die before settlement, my estate is still legally bound to purchase your house, and you have legal recourse if my executor attempts to pull out of the sale.
...or prison camps beginning to resemble Nazi concentration camps built and used by the USA...
Let me know when the chimneys are being raised and the forced labor begins.
I'm not happy iwht the things my government is doing right now, but it's a far cry between the current policies of the US government and that of the Nazis of the 1930s and 40s.
Neither one of your two "points" actually relates to your thesis, with the possible exception of the latter--and then only tenuously.
Looking at this objectively, the first question that must be answered is: "Are these websites what the newspaper story suggest they are, or something else?" I am assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are, in fact, websites run by and for al-Qaeda. That being the case, we can conclude that this is not a civil liberties issue, which makes your entire response problematic at best. Your suggestion that "Resisting evil with evil just makes more evil. It's not just bad, it's a bad idea" doesn't apply--shutting down the enemy's communication does not fall under the concept of "evil."
Then we come to this: "Defense" generally consists of killing hundreds of thousands, or millions, of innocent people. I'm sorry, but that can't justify ANYTHING." My first thought was to wonder what shutting down websites has to do with killing millions of people. My second thought is that you're entirely incorrect: I can justify killing hundreds or thousands or millions of innocent people in the name of defense--for example, if doing so saves more lives. For a real world example of this principle in action, see World War II and the strategy of removing your enemy's ability to wage war by destroying his infrastructure and manufacturing capability. This ends up costing a lot of civillian lives, but probably ends up saving just as many or more by shortening the war significantly.
let me ak you this, and consider it seriously. in this day and age, if you were muslim and ran a website that put forward views that were pro al-qaeda, BUT you never actually engaged in any illegal activites or corrispondence with criminals, would put up your fucking hand?
As noted in TFA, those sites are still up. However, I do agree with you: If I were living in the UK and an al-Qaeda supporter, no, I probably wouldn't want to attempt to press my rights. I am, however, unconvinced that your pronouncement "this is how it begins" is correct--while we have seen encroachment upon civil liberties as part of "the war on terra," it's debatable whether pressing the enemy's viewpoints in time of war actually falls under the umbrella of "free speech."
A good example of this would be Tokyo Rose, who was an american citizen tried and convicted of treason by the US following the second world war. British law may work differently, though.
A web site is a luxury a military organization definitely can be without, and many even don't even want to have, and far from a neccessity.
We're not talking about the 101st airborne here, we're talking about insurgents trying to talk to each other--and to spread propaganda. In that case, a website becomes a very important tool for a military organization.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a problem with the point you're making:
IE6 is four years old. While SP2 was released last year, this version is applicable ONLY to WinXP SP2--all other platforms are stuck at IE6 SP1, which was released almost exactly three years ago. Everything since then has supposedly been security fixes and the like.
It's not a moving target--it really IS supposed to be mature code. There's a far cry between this and something under active development!
People are opposed to it because the effect (if not the intent, but really the intent too) is to disenfranchise the kinds of people who don't have driver's licenses and for whom buying a replacement ID is an onerous burden, namely the poor, which is to say to a great extent, the black residents of the state.
Here is the Georgia State DMVS fee schedule.
A non-driver ID costs $20 for five years, or $35 for ten. That's $3.50-$4.00 per year. This is NOT an "onerous burden." This is four cans of soda. What's more, is they offer an ID card "for voting purposes only." Cost: free. Tempest, meet teapot.
For god's sake, Jimmy Carter is on board with this. While I often disagree with the former president's politics, I have no doubt about the man's integrity and honest desire to do the right thing. I would certainly trust him to not craft a system that disenfranchises poor voters.
Good job getting windows to work on "Unix Hardware", I never thought that was possible.
:)
Maybe they're running NT4 on an Alpha?
Right, because we all know ESR is on the same level with those two guys because he's responsible for uh... What exactly did he do?
Maybe he's suggesting that F/OSS as we know it wouldn't exist without fetchmail?
Ad implements ldap v3 anyhow, so with a few minor modifications (like schema updates) or tweaks in the source of the application, anything that works with ldap can work with active directory.
Right, that was my point--putting in OpenLDAP would just be reinventing the wheel with the added issue of now having to manage both it and AD.
OpenLDAP
You need a central configuration repository to store the email accounts, their passwords, etc. OpenLDAP is perfect for this, and you can replicate it out for scalability. Be prepared to learn about LDAP schemas.
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but given that he's migrating from Exchange, it's fairly likely that they're already an Active Directory shop... it doesn't make sense to abandon it for OpenLDAP, especially given that they're almost certainly windows only on the desktop and will still need AD even if they ditch Exchange.
And why generate it at all rather than just use the first two characters of the domain name?
Because there are a thousand times as many domains that start with the letter T than with the letter X. A hash gives you a far more even distribution than just using the first few characters of the domain.
so crackers don't get to guess where other people's mail lives.
/maildirs
I'm fairly certain we're talking for performance reasons here. 20k files in a single directory==slooooow, so you break them up into reasonably well distributed chunks. As far as security through obscurity goes, it dies with the following simple sequence of commands:
cd
find . -name "domain\.com" -print
If they did this, China would just block the IP of Google's cache. I'm sorry, I would do the same thing if I were in Google's shoes.
Whether or not it makes good business sense (I agree that it does) is immaterial to this argument. Aiding a dictatorial government in oppressing its people (by denying them access to information critical of that government) most certainly does NOT fit my understanding of the phrase "don't be evil."
There are already buildings throughout the world with parking on the ground floor. Why would a prevalence of them make them more attractive as a target? Does building more skyscrapers increase the chance of another 9/11? It just doesn't follow.
I'm not saying that I agree with the logic, but it's a fact that "anti-terror" thinking dominates the actions of governmental organizations in the US these days.
They build tank traps in front of government buildings. Underground parking? Forget about it.
While individuals may choose to build as the grandparent suggests, on any large scale it would have to be forced by government action--writing it into the local building codes, for example. And these days, there is absolutely no chance of something like that passing the terrorism bar.
Another thought I had is rebuilding the new buildings so that the first floors are parking only, designed specifically to take flooding without major damage.
That will never happen in this day and age, given current security concerns. Two words: "car bomb."
I really can't imagine it being profitable for them to buy thousands of a song to increase its ranking. Remember that Apple keeps a cut of the profits. Buying the songs wouldn't cost them nothing.
You're incorrect--what the record company will do is bill the artist for this as a "marketing expense" thus it really DOES cost them nothing.
though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).
As the post you replied to noted, Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for stem cell research. That being the case, I can't help but wonder what "halt in federal funding" you are referring to?
Thank you for your excellent summary of the issue--I wish more people on either side of this debate could look at it as objectively as you have.
Theses days you can't buy anything smaller than a 60/80GB unless it's used.
If you're willing to buy a couple of million units of something "obsolete" you can have just about anything that you want. Ford would happily start making Model-Ts again if someone was going to buy five million of the things.
For me to do the trimming, I would have to buy clippers, buy a ladder and then try and climb and hope I don't break my neck. Since I am putting myself at risk at climbing the ladder, that is qualified.
Being afraid of the ladder will not rise to the court's definition of "unsafe." What's even more amusing is that if you make this claim in court, you will be purjuring yourself--you've stated here that the real issue is that you don't want to be bothered because it's his tree. It's not a safety issue at all.
FWIW, I tend to agree with you as far as "the right thing to do" goes--your neighbor most certainly SHOULD resolve the problem, and the fact that it's made it to the stage of legal action is pretty damn sad. That said, what's right isn't always what's legal.
If the problem cannot be resolved by agreement or by your safe removal of the objectionable growth, the courts will compel a landowner to trim or remove trees that encroach on your land.
This rather neatly kills your "why should *I* have to do it, it's HIS tree" position.
Oh whoops, I should've clarified: prisoners of war are not subject to courts-martial. They are subject to trial by civilian court or a specially appointed war crimes court. Courts-martial is reserved for service men and woman only in the military where the courts-martial is taking place, never for POWs. It is assumed that during a time of war your typical grunt, while he might hold valuable intel, cannot be held responsible for actions committed which do not violate the rules of war.
You have this backward. It is illegal to try a prisoner of war in a civillian court--unless the detaining party also tries its soldiers in civil courts. Also, "laws of war" don't enter into it: you can try a POW for any offense your own soldiers are subject to, and you must sentence them as you would one of your own soldiers. Up to and including the death penalty. The one thing you cannot do is reduce the prisoner in rank, or strip them of medals or qualification badges.
The important part, by the way, is that the court martial be fair--the accused is entitled to a defense inclusive of the help of one of his own side, an interpreter (if required), and an officer to defend him of his own choosing. A 'Protecting Party' (the International Red Cross, pretty much, though these days the UN would probably also be acceptable) must be informed if judicial proceedings are initiated against a POW, and must be allowed to attend the trial to ensure its fairness.
From the 3rd Geneva Convention:
Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
Article 85
Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.
There's more, but I don't see the need to inject yet more text into this discussion. You can read the test for you self at the UN Commissioner for Human Rights website.
If your clients run Autodesk CAD software, then so should you, and that will make a huge dent in your bottom line. Our clients stagnated on AutoCAD 2000 for years, then just this month decided (and these are fortune-500 retailers, mind you) "oh, lets upgrade to AutoCAD 2006, so should YOU"...
Their reasoning behind this was pretty sound--Autodesk EOLed acad2000 based products in january of this year. That means no support and (worse yet from a financial standpoint) acad2000 products no longer qualify for upgrade pricing. Acad2002 goes EOL in January of next year, so expect another cycle of your customers upgrading by then.
It's like a contract with a dead guy - the living party is no longer bound.
Contracts don't simply become null and void if one party dies (unless, of course, the contract specifies so.) The estate of the deceased is still bound by the contract terms, as is the other party to the deal. Example: You and I sign a real estate contract that says I'm going to buy your house for $500k. If I die before settlement, my estate is still legally bound to purchase your house, and you have legal recourse if my executor attempts to pull out of the sale.
IANAL, but it's obvious that you aren't either.
I can just see the future Slashdot headline...
"VeriChip and Ruffles join, create new RFID 'chip'"
To be followed shortly thereafter by "Intel merges with Frito-lay. New company to focus on 'system on a chip' designs."
Let me know when the chimneys are being raised and the forced labor begins.
I'm not happy iwht the things my government is doing right now, but it's a far cry between the current policies of the US government and that of the Nazis of the 1930s and 40s.
I'm sorry, but your post does not make any sense.
Neither one of your two "points" actually relates to your thesis, with the possible exception of the latter--and then only tenuously.
Looking at this objectively, the first question that must be answered is: "Are these websites what the newspaper story suggest they are, or something else?" I am assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are, in fact, websites run by and for al-Qaeda. That being the case, we can conclude that this is not a civil liberties issue, which makes your entire response problematic at best. Your suggestion that "Resisting evil with evil just makes more evil. It's not just bad, it's a bad idea" doesn't apply--shutting down the enemy's communication does not fall under the concept of "evil."
Then we come to this: "Defense" generally consists of killing hundreds of thousands, or millions, of innocent people. I'm sorry, but that can't justify ANYTHING." My first thought was to wonder what shutting down websites has to do with killing millions of people. My second thought is that you're entirely incorrect: I can justify killing hundreds or thousands or millions of innocent people in the name of defense--for example, if doing so saves more lives. For a real world example of this principle in action, see World War II and the strategy of removing your enemy's ability to wage war by destroying his infrastructure and manufacturing capability. This ends up costing a lot of civillian lives, but probably ends up saving just as many or more by shortening the war significantly.
let me ak you this, and consider it seriously. in this day and age, if you were muslim and ran a website that put forward views that were pro al-qaeda, BUT you never actually engaged in any illegal activites or corrispondence with criminals, would put up your fucking hand?
As noted in TFA, those sites are still up. However, I do agree with you: If I were living in the UK and an al-Qaeda supporter, no, I probably wouldn't want to attempt to press my rights. I am, however, unconvinced that your pronouncement "this is how it begins" is correct--while we have seen encroachment upon civil liberties as part of "the war on terra," it's debatable whether pressing the enemy's viewpoints in time of war actually falls under the umbrella of "free speech."
A good example of this would be Tokyo Rose, who was an american citizen tried and convicted of treason by the US following the second world war. British law may work differently, though.
A web site is a luxury a military organization definitely can be without, and many even don't even want to have, and far from a neccessity.
We're not talking about the 101st airborne here, we're talking about insurgents trying to talk to each other--and to spread propaganda. In that case, a website becomes a very important tool for a military organization.