Then define it with whatever definition you like. I'm sure that I can find some way to use "solve" in a problem without curing it. I can "solve" the boss's problem of not sending email by rebooting a router and never figuring out what happened that blocked email. The problem is solved, but the cause of the problem is never known.
The whole point of "rules of law" over "rule of man" is that it protects the poor and minorities from the whims of the rulers.
The rule of law still exists, and is only applied to the poor and minorities. The rich have "discretion" (allowed in rule of law) that lets people like my uncle (a district judge in IL) get pulled over 10+ times as a fall-down drunk and only get 2 DUIs on his record. The third would end driving and his career. One night, he drove back to his crashed car, after he crashed it drunk, and nearly ran over the police dealing with the crash. Had he slept it off at home, they'd have come past in the morning, and he'd (hopefully) be sober by then. But, with lots of civilian witnesses, they had to give him his 3rd DUI. He lost his job and his driver's license. But it took many times of flagrantly breaking the law before it was applied. I have white friends who ran from the cops in Texas, all let go, and a black friend picked up walking on the side of the road (16, walking between school and home, broad daylight) arrested for matching the description of a robbery suspect.
The rule of law isn't applied any more harshly than the written law against the poor and minorities. So it's still "rule of law" even if the rich white people don't have the same rules applied.
It's like the adage, there are no good cops. Only bad cops, and those that cover for them. If it was done to 3 people and "eventually" leaked out, it wasn't immediately reported by the 10-50 guards that transported them or saw the implements of torture. It was covered up by the military. So yes, it proves guilt for more than just the three who did it.
There's been little gathering of power in the executive. Those that mainipulate the governemnt had been more patient, and would make laws and hold them, ready to pass, for opportunities to do so (Patriot Act was longer than what could be written in the time it was introduced). These laws don't prove that the government caused the crisis, but that they expected something to happen sometime, so the laws were ready to go in response.
But, why bother to even go through that trouble, when the puppet president can just issue signing statements and executive orders to the same effect? Obviously, nobody cares. Both parties do it, as the power behind the government is the same, regardless of whether their name has (D) or (R) next to it. If the people cared, (I) would get more votes. Aristocracy isn't anarchy, even if the Aristocracy is above the law. Rule of law still exists, even if only for the poor an minorities.
You neglected my question. Does a "fix" like "reboot" solve a problem or remove a symptom?
You are defining the problem based on the solution. You are fishing for a specific answer, rather than thinking about it. If the "problem" is that the boss can't send an email, then yes, the reboot fixes the problem. The cause of the problem is a separate thing.Of course, someone not suffering from D-K would know there's a separate "cause" that will likely recur, if not found.
Back then, that was "Networking Essentials" right? I can't find much on the ancient test, without knowing the test number, and for that I'd have to dig up my ancient MCSE. I remember it being more about the server side of the network, and nothing on networking in general. You could not know what a subnet mask is, and still pass. But anyone who could easily pass without knowing what a subnet mask is, would know what a subnet mask is.
D-K comes from people who "solve" a problem once, so they are now experts. They don't know what they don't know, and don't know how to fix it, but managed to fix it before, so they must be experts.
I don't believe someone should be able to pass a RHCE or even a higher level MCSE without understanding something so basic as a netmask and broadcast address.
Are you saying that the tests shouldn't allow them to pas (but may do today), or that the tests don't allow them to pass without basic networking knowledge?
I don't care if you can give me all 7 layers of the OSI model by rote, I care that you can at least debug your area of responsibility as a SA.
There's a very large Dunning-Kruger with problem solving. Give someone a problem, and they'll treat it like their last problem, until proven otherwise. Reboot try again. I've seen server admins try that with networking gear. I've never seen it work for anything other than a home router. Or if he knows the last problem was a duplex mismatch, he'll check the duplex on every server and every switch in the network before looking at anything else. God forbid a server admin has heard of a packet capture. He'll capture everything, usually in a place that won't get what he's looking for, and then hands it to you, like he gave you the solution, and waits for you to read it to him like a bedtime story.
I don't disagree that someone at the RHCE level should know at least the basics of networking. But as a networking guy, I'm often called in to clean up other's messes. And some of those messes have been very basic errors by MCSE/RHCE people, and having experience with both certs, they are passable without knowing networking, even if you'll be at a 2% disadvantage for not knowing it.
Mask was used for the reasons you describe. Theoretically one could have discontinuous networks (I've seen some where it would have worked, but everyone involved cringed at the idea of sending a block of addresses to a subnetwork that would leave a discontinuous network, so we just forced the subnetwork to re-address). That is, except for I don't think that all RFCs are supported on all gear. So what happens if you run into something that isn't RFC 950 compliant? So, in practice, people use contiguous at all times, but the standard was built with more flexibility than the people that work on networks allow.
The skills you assert aren't tested for. Most Linux admins I know don't know networking at all. For RHCE, you need to know how to put in settings in a server. But not what they do or what they mean. The Cisco device isn't well understood. The last RHCE I dealt with configured a duplex mismatch and blamed the Cisco for doing what he told it to do. The Cisco device is simple and understood by people who know basics of networking. But RHCEs don't need to know to pass the test, and in practice, don't know.
Why, are you an RHCE? You sound pretty aggressively defensive.
As absurd as it is, I know more than one person that got an MCSE and didn't know what a subnet mask is (other than you always set it to 255.255.255.0 for a server). When I got my MCSE, it would have helped to know what it was, but wasn't required.
Well, then take M.2 when it's available. It's just the next generation mSATA. Though a quick look, and the shops around here aren't carrying M.2 yet, but it can be mail ordered. The slowest M.2 match mSATA, and they get faster from there. Eventually.
Knowing how to enter a netmask in someone's GUI does not mean you understand what a netmask is, or what a broadcast address is, or how to calculate either from the other.
If you don't know what a netmask is, you shouldn't be able to pass CCNA (though could get an MCSE or RHCE). I was just chatting with a server admin here and they don't know the difference between a switch and router (almost all switches are L-3 switches, and almost all routers will bridge ports, so is there a difference?).
There's a guy who was arrested yesterday here. He was a local sports guy, so it made it in the local papers. He claimed he drank the night before, but it was 12+ hours since his last drink, so he didn't think he was drunk. He blew over the limit. Even the time pilots go after the last drink isn't enough, if they were highly drunk at the time. The question was about self awareness, which is impaired when drunk, and how one could tell whether one was safe. Especially for under-age drinkers, it's hard to tell. They have little experience drinking. And, when I mentioned counting drinks, people said that was insufficient. So would be waiting, unless it's an aggressively long period. 3 weeks from last drink to driving.
The mSATA ports are usually in laptops that have a full-sized (for a laptop) bay anyway. So a 500 GB SSD and 1 TB spinner would be enough for almost anyone, with great speed, or in my wife's case, the 24GB flash and 1 TB HDD for SSD performance across 1 TB of storage.
Why? Just buy a laptop that has an mSATA port. I've bought two of those for $600 or so (one for the wife, one for me). The wife's came with a 24GB drive, set up as a cache. I dropped a 256GB drive in mine (came empty) and moved the system and common programs on it. We both have a 1 TB drive as the "main" storage.
The cache works better that I would have guessed. Almost as fast as a "pure" SSD for all common tasks, and cheaper/easier.
The people vote on the people representing them. That's democracy. A specific type that's so common it gets its own name, Representative Democracy.
Is your argument that you don't believe the US is a Representative Democracy? Or that a Representative Democracy isn't a democracy? I can't tell from your words which is your argument.
I answered the question truthfully. They must have only been looking for lying criminals. In Texas at the time, a speeding ticket is covered by the criminal code, as it is a "crime" for all definitions of the word "crime".
I'm sorry that you don't understand legal definitions. A "crime" is any crime described as a crime by the penal code. A minor traffic violation is a class-C misdemeanor, as defined in the Penal Code, thus a crime.
"My mother got sick and was given 2 weeks to live. 20 years later, she finally died. I went to be by her side, and didn't end up moving on until after." Nobody would question that. Nobody would ask any follow-up questions to that. And it's better than murder.
So, if you don't like the current definition of a word, then it's everyone else that's using it wrong? That's not how language works. https://www.google.co.nz/searc...
Pick your favorite definition, and let me know which it is. Most I saw implied a frivolity.
So a public hack is disclosed, and parts of it are reused (if not in code, then at least in spirit). Should we be looking at DPRK as the source, or should DPRK be looking for a copyright violation suit against the Sony hackers?
Or the hackers are for sale, and sold a new targeted attack to a new buyer, DPRK was just the previous buyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Then define it with whatever definition you like. I'm sure that I can find some way to use "solve" in a problem without curing it. I can "solve" the boss's problem of not sending email by rebooting a router and never figuring out what happened that blocked email. The problem is solved, but the cause of the problem is never known.
The whole point of "rules of law" over "rule of man" is that it protects the poor and minorities from the whims of the rulers.
The rule of law still exists, and is only applied to the poor and minorities. The rich have "discretion" (allowed in rule of law) that lets people like my uncle (a district judge in IL) get pulled over 10+ times as a fall-down drunk and only get 2 DUIs on his record. The third would end driving and his career. One night, he drove back to his crashed car, after he crashed it drunk, and nearly ran over the police dealing with the crash. Had he slept it off at home, they'd have come past in the morning, and he'd (hopefully) be sober by then. But, with lots of civilian witnesses, they had to give him his 3rd DUI. He lost his job and his driver's license. But it took many times of flagrantly breaking the law before it was applied. I have white friends who ran from the cops in Texas, all let go, and a black friend picked up walking on the side of the road (16, walking between school and home, broad daylight) arrested for matching the description of a robbery suspect.
The rule of law isn't applied any more harshly than the written law against the poor and minorities. So it's still "rule of law" even if the rich white people don't have the same rules applied.
It's the standard we should be applying to all of them.
All that means is that you weren't suspicious enough.
It's like the adage, there are no good cops. Only bad cops, and those that cover for them. If it was done to 3 people and "eventually" leaked out, it wasn't immediately reported by the 10-50 guards that transported them or saw the implements of torture. It was covered up by the military. So yes, it proves guilt for more than just the three who did it.
There's been little gathering of power in the executive. Those that mainipulate the governemnt had been more patient, and would make laws and hold them, ready to pass, for opportunities to do so (Patriot Act was longer than what could be written in the time it was introduced). These laws don't prove that the government caused the crisis, but that they expected something to happen sometime, so the laws were ready to go in response.
But, why bother to even go through that trouble, when the puppet president can just issue signing statements and executive orders to the same effect? Obviously, nobody cares. Both parties do it, as the power behind the government is the same, regardless of whether their name has (D) or (R) next to it. If the people cared, (I) would get more votes. Aristocracy isn't anarchy, even if the Aristocracy is above the law. Rule of law still exists, even if only for the poor an minorities.
You neglected my question. Does a "fix" like "reboot" solve a problem or remove a symptom?
You are defining the problem based on the solution. You are fishing for a specific answer, rather than thinking about it. If the "problem" is that the boss can't send an email, then yes, the reboot fixes the problem. The cause of the problem is a separate thing.Of course, someone not suffering from D-K would know there's a separate "cause" that will likely recur, if not found.
Back then, that was "Networking Essentials" right? I can't find much on the ancient test, without knowing the test number, and for that I'd have to dig up my ancient MCSE. I remember it being more about the server side of the network, and nothing on networking in general. You could not know what a subnet mask is, and still pass. But anyone who could easily pass without knowing what a subnet mask is, would know what a subnet mask is.
D-K comes from people who "solve" a problem once, so they are now experts. They don't know what they don't know, and don't know how to fix it, but managed to fix it before, so they must be experts.
I don't believe someone should be able to pass a RHCE or even a higher level MCSE without understanding something so basic as a netmask and broadcast address.
Are you saying that the tests shouldn't allow them to pas (but may do today), or that the tests don't allow them to pass without basic networking knowledge?
I don't care if you can give me all 7 layers of the OSI model by rote, I care that you can at least debug your area of responsibility as a SA.
There's a very large Dunning-Kruger with problem solving. Give someone a problem, and they'll treat it like their last problem, until proven otherwise. Reboot try again. I've seen server admins try that with networking gear. I've never seen it work for anything other than a home router. Or if he knows the last problem was a duplex mismatch, he'll check the duplex on every server and every switch in the network before looking at anything else. God forbid a server admin has heard of a packet capture. He'll capture everything, usually in a place that won't get what he's looking for, and then hands it to you, like he gave you the solution, and waits for you to read it to him like a bedtime story.
I don't disagree that someone at the RHCE level should know at least the basics of networking. But as a networking guy, I'm often called in to clean up other's messes. And some of those messes have been very basic errors by MCSE/RHCE people, and having experience with both certs, they are passable without knowing networking, even if you'll be at a 2% disadvantage for not knowing it.
Mask was used for the reasons you describe. Theoretically one could have discontinuous networks (I've seen some where it would have worked, but everyone involved cringed at the idea of sending a block of addresses to a subnetwork that would leave a discontinuous network, so we just forced the subnetwork to re-address). That is, except for I don't think that all RFCs are supported on all gear. So what happens if you run into something that isn't RFC 950 compliant? So, in practice, people use contiguous at all times, but the standard was built with more flexibility than the people that work on networks allow.
http://www.redhat.com/en/servi...
The skills you assert aren't tested for. Most Linux admins I know don't know networking at all. For RHCE, you need to know how to put in settings in a server. But not what they do or what they mean. The Cisco device isn't well understood. The last RHCE I dealt with configured a duplex mismatch and blamed the Cisco for doing what he told it to do. The Cisco device is simple and understood by people who know basics of networking. But RHCEs don't need to know to pass the test, and in practice, don't know.
Why, are you an RHCE? You sound pretty aggressively defensive.
As absurd as it is, I know more than one person that got an MCSE and didn't know what a subnet mask is (other than you always set it to 255.255.255.0 for a server). When I got my MCSE, it would have helped to know what it was, but wasn't required.
Well, then take M.2 when it's available. It's just the next generation mSATA. Though a quick look, and the shops around here aren't carrying M.2 yet, but it can be mail ordered. The slowest M.2 match mSATA, and they get faster from there. Eventually.
Knowing how to enter a netmask in someone's GUI does not mean you understand what a netmask is, or what a broadcast address is, or how to calculate either from the other.
If you don't know what a netmask is, you shouldn't be able to pass CCNA (though could get an MCSE or RHCE). I was just chatting with a server admin here and they don't know the difference between a switch and router (almost all switches are L-3 switches, and almost all routers will bridge ports, so is there a difference?).
There's a guy who was arrested yesterday here. He was a local sports guy, so it made it in the local papers. He claimed he drank the night before, but it was 12+ hours since his last drink, so he didn't think he was drunk. He blew over the limit. Even the time pilots go after the last drink isn't enough, if they were highly drunk at the time. The question was about self awareness, which is impaired when drunk, and how one could tell whether one was safe. Especially for under-age drinkers, it's hard to tell. They have little experience drinking. And, when I mentioned counting drinks, people said that was insufficient. So would be waiting, unless it's an aggressively long period. 3 weeks from last drink to driving.
The mSATA ports are usually in laptops that have a full-sized (for a laptop) bay anyway. So a 500 GB SSD and 1 TB spinner would be enough for almost anyone, with great speed, or in my wife's case, the 24GB flash and 1 TB HDD for SSD performance across 1 TB of storage.
Why? Just buy a laptop that has an mSATA port. I've bought two of those for $600 or so (one for the wife, one for me). The wife's came with a 24GB drive, set up as a cache. I dropped a 256GB drive in mine (came empty) and moved the system and common programs on it. We both have a 1 TB drive as the "main" storage.
The cache works better that I would have guessed. Almost as fast as a "pure" SSD for all common tasks, and cheaper/easier.
The people vote on the people representing them. That's democracy. A specific type that's so common it gets its own name, Representative Democracy.
Is your argument that you don't believe the US is a Representative Democracy? Or that a Representative Democracy isn't a democracy? I can't tell from your words which is your argument.
I answered the question truthfully. They must have only been looking for lying criminals. In Texas at the time, a speeding ticket is covered by the criminal code, as it is a "crime" for all definitions of the word "crime".
I'm sorry that you don't understand legal definitions. A "crime" is any crime described as a crime by the penal code. A minor traffic violation is a class-C misdemeanor, as defined in the Penal Code, thus a crime.
"My mother got sick and was given 2 weeks to live. 20 years later, she finally died. I went to be by her side, and didn't end up moving on until after." Nobody would question that. Nobody would ask any follow-up questions to that. And it's better than murder.
So, if you don't like the current definition of a word, then it's everyone else that's using it wrong? That's not how language works. https://www.google.co.nz/searc...
Pick your favorite definition, and let me know which it is. Most I saw implied a frivolity.
So a public hack is disclosed, and parts of it are reused (if not in code, then at least in spirit). Should we be looking at DPRK as the source, or should DPRK be looking for a copyright violation suit against the Sony hackers?
Or the hackers are for sale, and sold a new targeted attack to a new buyer, DPRK was just the previous buyer.