No worries, you won't find Anubis either apparently. Their sourceforge page is almost blank, their "normal" wiki is empty and their developer wiki requires you to register and to chat with someone on IRC(for reasons which are unclear).
My question is, how much older are they talking about? I've been a Fedora user since FC4 and it's always required the root password as far as I've ever been aware. Maybe they meant to say "For example, in earlier versions, ordinary (non-admin) users could NOT install software on Fedora without access to the root password"???
So your books are worth nothing to you, are they? Or you don't have any books remotely considered rare. Seriously, some of us have books worth more than $3 and some of us would like to be able to resell some of them at one point which is decidedly hard to do when you've butchered them.
You know, that's very coincidental about the National Acadamies of Science warning the US it had "detected a strong AGW signal in the 1950's" because the time they would have been collecting the data would have been when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO) was in its warm phase, and from what I've read, we didn't really know the PDO was a real thing or that it controlled as much of the weather as it does until 1997 so how could they know any thing about the climate back then if we didn't know much about it until 12 years ago? BTW, if you check the historical record(I googled it and found it on NOAA's site I think) you will find that the ice shelves in the Antarctic were melting in the 40's just like they were recently and then those effects were reversed when the PDO went into the cool phase that lasted until the 1970's, but of course that last part isn't mentioned because at the time they didn't know about it.
The PDO is the reason the AGW camp stated(without sharing ANY details) that we would now start to experience some cooling because we, too, just got out of the warm phase and they know we're in for 30 years of much cooler weather.
I think you read a bit too much into what I was sharing. I don't know any of the specific studies that this guy handled, only that he was indeed in the position to do what he says he did.
"Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists?"
YES, as a matter of fact it does. The loons on EITHER side of the debate only harm the debate and knowledge base in general.
"I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too."
Well the problem is that you can clearly show that the Earth isn't flat and that evolution is real because there is hard data to back it up. However the AGW camp has data *models* which is a way of saying "this is my best hypothesis thusfar" yet they're stating that they know beyond a reasonable doubt that it's true whereas the real truth of the matter is that what they **know** beyond all reasonable doubt is data collected within the past 50 years; everything else is a part of these models.
To take this up a notch, we've known the Earth is round for hundreds of years; we've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science.
"Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists?"
YES, as a matter of fact it does. The loons on EITHER side of the debate only harm the debate and knowledge base in general.
"I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too."
Well the problem is that you can clearly show that the Earth isn't flat and that evolution is real because there is hard data to back it up. However the AGW camp has data *models* which is a way of saying "this is my best hypothesis thusfar" yet they're stating that they know beyond a reasonable doubt that it's true whereas the real truth of the matter is that what they **know** beyond all reasonable doubt is data collected within the past 50 years; everything else is a part of these models.
To take this up a notch, we've known the Earth is round for hundreds of years; we've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science.
Funny you should say that. There is a guy at the heart of a branch of psychology who, before he got into psychology, was a computer programmer back in the 60's and all the grad students used to come to him so he'd make a program that could create data that fit within their deviation. He now says that it scares the bejesus out of him because those studies are now heavily quoted and HE was personally responsible for make all that shit up...
Not remotely true. I don't believe in any of those but I know enough to be skeptical of anyone who can't deliver both their data and the methods they used to draw their conclusions. You don't have to use AGW as an example here, instead try cold fusion..
"If you meant the past several thousand years where humans managed to thrive"
Really? So we've had accurate temp, CO2 and oceanic temperature data for the past several thousand years? No I didn't mean that and no, we haven't had data for that long, we've barely had semi-accurate data for the past 30 years and everything else is completely guesswork, even if you prefer to call it "inferring". The thing with an inference versus observed data is that the inference has much higher odds of being absolutely wrong and groupthink doesn't make it any more right. If you want to see the whole groupthink + inferences thing going totally wrong, you only have to look at most of the conspiracy theories where "scientists" infer that since steel doesn't melt at 1100C that a steel building can't possibly collapse from fires burning at that temperature, or that since your child got a vaccine and later was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder that the thimerosal was to blame. All have one common element: not enough observed data. So why should I believe a bunch of scientists who don't have enough observed data to cover 10% of the past 300 years much less 3000 or 15000 or more, and many apparently don't agree there is an issue in the first place? That'd be like many of the "troofers" saying they think Al Qaeda did it with 2 airplanes and that explosives/thermite was not involved.
"Cherry-picking various number over short term periods is more a sales job that a serious data point (Wall St excels at doing this.)"
Short term? Like trying to base our entire climatological forecasts on our little blip here on the timeline? Even the climatologists see this as troublesome.
I actually accidentally discovered it BEFORE FC12 was released when I moved a.repo file I had downloaded as a standard user to/etc/yum.repos.d and then chown root-ed it with the 600 permissions I had previously set to it.
Usually when I'd do a "yum update" or whatever without using sudo, I would get "you need to run that as root" but instead afterward I got an error about being unable to read that particular repo and then yum exited. That behavior still holds even after the recent patch.
I don't actually use packagekit so I have to ask... Have you actually tested this to confirm or deny it or are you merely giving conjecture?
It's WIRELESS!! ********************** I LOVE that episode and was gonna post it but figure there had to be at least one person who'd beat me to it. Thanks
I wouldn't call that "easier". I would agree that it is the "proper" way to do it but it is definitely not easier than typing "chmod -R 600/etc/yum.repos.d"...;) But the method you, and someone else above you, pointed out will likely be how I handle this...so thanks.
I must be missing something here. WHY would someone use the original app instead of one modified to remove said rate limit? I mean the limit itself is going to be artificially imposed with something like "sleep(5)", so "cracking" the binary would be trivial at best, and the first vector I would think. Again, am I missing something here?
This can theoretically be easily disabled by chmod'ing to everything under/etc/yum.repos.d as 600, and of course making sure that everything there is owned by root. Assuming this doesn't extend to rpm, and my initial tests suggest it may not, then that should be enough to lock it down for the most part. This is preferable to locking down the yum binary since a user could just bring their own binary to the system and then install at will. I'm sure my method could be bypassed but I haven't had a lot of time to test so someone else feel free to test it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. That takes a while to get to the point but I remember all that controversy. This makes Bono look like a total piece of shit.
No worries, you won't find Anubis either apparently. Their sourceforge page is almost blank, their "normal" wiki is empty and their developer wiki requires you to register and to chat with someone on IRC(for reasons which are unclear).
"They're already starting to hedge on the 2012 mishegaas, covering their pre-columbian asses to avoid looking stupid on Jan 1, 2013."
You mean December 22, 2012, not Jan 1, 2013. And it's not even at midnight.
I came here to see if anyone thought of King Missile and I'm not leaving disappointed.
My question is, how much older are they talking about? I've been a Fedora user since FC4 and it's always required the root password as far as I've ever been aware. Maybe they meant to say "For example, in earlier versions, ordinary (non-admin) users could NOT install software on Fedora without access to the root password"???
Yeah, Happy Chaka Khan to you too!
So your books are worth nothing to you, are they? Or you don't have any books remotely considered rare. Seriously, some of us have books worth more than $3 and some of us would like to be able to resell some of them at one point which is decidedly hard to do when you've butchered them.
One has to wonder how they'd react if we all just posted the redacted PDF everywhere along with instructions on how to bypass the redactions.
You know, that's very coincidental about the National Acadamies of Science warning the US it had "detected a strong AGW signal in the 1950's" because the time they would have been collecting the data would have been when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO) was in its warm phase, and from what I've read, we didn't really know the PDO was a real thing or that it controlled as much of the weather as it does until 1997 so how could they know any thing about the climate back then if we didn't know much about it until 12 years ago? BTW, if you check the historical record(I googled it and found it on NOAA's site I think) you will find that the ice shelves in the Antarctic were melting in the 40's just like they were recently and then those effects were reversed when the PDO went into the cool phase that lasted until the 1970's, but of course that last part isn't mentioned because at the time they didn't know about it.
The PDO is the reason the AGW camp stated(without sharing ANY details) that we would now start to experience some cooling because we, too, just got out of the warm phase and they know we're in for 30 years of much cooler weather.
I was talking about the way some people seem unable to read between the lines. Funny that you missed it. Have another pint, you obviously need one.
I think you read a bit too much into what I was sharing. I don't know any of the specific studies that this guy handled, only that he was indeed in the position to do what he says he did.
Crap, html formatting gets me again...
"Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists?"
YES, as a matter of fact it does. The loons on EITHER side of the debate only harm the debate and knowledge base in general.
"I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too."
Well the problem is that you can clearly show that the Earth isn't flat and that evolution is real because there is hard data to back it up. However the AGW camp has data *models* which is a way of saying "this is my best hypothesis thusfar" yet they're stating that they know beyond a reasonable doubt that it's true whereas the real truth of the matter is that what they **know** beyond all reasonable doubt is data collected within the past 50 years; everything else is a part of these models.
To take this up a notch, we've known the Earth is round for hundreds of years; we've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science.
"Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists?" YES, as a matter of fact it does. The loons on EITHER side of the debate only harm the debate and knowledge base in general. "I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too." Well the problem is that you can clearly show that the Earth isn't flat and that evolution is real because there is hard data to back it up. However the AGW camp has data *models* which is a way of saying "this is my best hypothesis thusfar" yet they're stating that they know beyond a reasonable doubt that it's true whereas the real truth of the matter is that what they **know** beyond all reasonable doubt is data collected within the past 50 years; everything else is a part of these models. To take this up a notch, we've known the Earth is round for hundreds of years; we've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science.
*responsible for making all that shit up*
Funny you should say that. There is a guy at the heart of a branch of psychology who, before he got into psychology, was a computer programmer back in the 60's and all the grad students used to come to him so he'd make a program that could create data that fit within their deviation. He now says that it scares the bejesus out of him because those studies are now heavily quoted and HE was personally responsible for make all that shit up...
Not remotely true. I don't believe in any of those but I know enough to be skeptical of anyone who can't deliver both their data and the methods they used to draw their conclusions. You don't have to use AGW as an example here, instead try cold fusion..
You can reach the theatre at: Questions@muvico.com for all your questions and/or complaints.
"If you meant the past several thousand years where humans managed to thrive"
Really? So we've had accurate temp, CO2 and oceanic temperature data for the past several thousand years? No I didn't mean that and no, we haven't had data for that long, we've barely had semi-accurate data for the past 30 years and everything else is completely guesswork, even if you prefer to call it "inferring". The thing with an inference versus observed data is that the inference has much higher odds of being absolutely wrong and groupthink doesn't make it any more right. If you want to see the whole groupthink + inferences thing going totally wrong, you only have to look at most of the conspiracy theories where "scientists" infer that since steel doesn't melt at 1100C that a steel building can't possibly collapse from fires burning at that temperature, or that since your child got a vaccine and later was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder that the thimerosal was to blame. All have one common element: not enough observed data. So why should I believe a bunch of scientists who don't have enough observed data to cover 10% of the past 300 years much less 3000 or 15000 or more, and many apparently don't agree there is an issue in the first place? That'd be like many of the "troofers" saying they think Al Qaeda did it with 2 airplanes and that explosives/thermite was not involved.
"Cherry-picking various number over short term periods is more a sales job that a serious data point (Wall St excels at doing this.)"
Short term? Like trying to base our entire climatological forecasts on our little blip here on the timeline? Even the climatologists see this as troublesome.
I actually accidentally discovered it BEFORE FC12 was released when I moved a .repo file I had downloaded as a standard user to /etc/yum.repos.d and then chown root-ed it with the 600 permissions I had previously set to it.
Usually when I'd do a "yum update" or whatever without using sudo, I would get "you need to run that as root" but instead afterward I got an error about being unable to read that particular repo and then yum exited. That behavior still holds even after the recent patch.
I don't actually use packagekit so I have to ask... Have you actually tested this to confirm or deny it or are you merely giving conjecture?
Can someone explain the acronym "AGW" I get that the "GW" is probably global warming but does the "A" mean "Anti"??
But there are no wires or anything...
It's WIRELESS!!
**********************
I LOVE that episode and was gonna post it but figure there had to be at least one person who'd beat me to it. Thanks
I wouldn't call that "easier". I would agree that it is the "proper" way to do it but it is definitely not easier than typing "chmod -R 600 /etc/yum.repos.d"...;) But the method you, and someone else above you, pointed out will likely be how I handle this...so thanks.
I must be missing something here. WHY would someone use the original app instead of one modified to remove said rate limit? I mean the limit itself is going to be artificially imposed with something like "sleep(5)", so "cracking" the binary would be trivial at best, and the first vector I would think. Again, am I missing something here?
This can theoretically be easily disabled by chmod'ing to everything under /etc/yum.repos.d as 600, and of course making sure that everything there is owned by root. Assuming this doesn't extend to rpm, and my initial tests suggest it may not, then that should be enough to lock it down for the most part. This is preferable to locking down the yum binary since a user could just bring their own binary to the system and then install at will. I'm sure my method could be bypassed but I haven't had a lot of time to test so someone else feel free to test it.