You're missing something here - if you leave the DB port open, you must give your application/applet the necessary credentials to log in to the database; hence you're providing those to the outside. If you use a webservice, you may have the user authenticate himself
Huh? You can do that for the db server as well; it prompts for the credentials that will connect to the database. Most databases even have encrypted connections built in.
but also you can sanity-check data before forwarding it to the database.
That's certainly true.
If you don't take any precaution with your data, you're going to lose, no matter how many layers -- but somehow I can't find myself agreeing that giving the raw DB socket and passing all necessary authentication info to the world at large within the applet I'm sending out is a good way either. (of course, you can try and lock down the DB user so that the user within the DB can't do much damage, but you're still opening a hole through which you might also try and hack for other DB accounts with more permissions).
I don't see why managing logins which a web service uses is different than managing the logins for a database server. There's no need to have the application use one logon for everyone.
Those with poor eyesight should be wearing glasses / contacts. A slightly larger than normal font can be used for all ballots.
Currently, its too easy to steal an election with e-voting machines. It can be done with paper, but its harder. I'd rather stick to older methods until newer ones can be proven more reliable and tamper proof.
Your job next election then: ensure each voting booth in Orange County, CA has enough paper ballots in the proper languages, including (but not exclusive to) English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Also keep braille ballots on hand.
Ok, I can handle that. First, we'll make English the only offical language of the country. There. No need for the other languages. So now we just have braille and English. I think that's feasible.
No, you're wrong. You were the one saying you could make a case for libel. That's a legal term, and if you think you can make a case that the OP libeled the representative, YOU need to prove it. Just as the representitive would need to prove the same.
Even forgetting about proving the truthfulness of the OP's statement, the representative would still need to prove his reputation or standing in the community was damaged as a result of the OP's post. If you like, feel free to prove that part of the case and forget about whether or not the OP's statement was true at all.
Huh? I've never heard anyone say Walmart that didn't mean exactly Walmart.
Also, its a regional thing that people call cola sodas "Coke." Again, almost everywhere I've heard Coke to mean coke and pepsi to mean pepsi. Just that coke is sold at more places than pepsi.
But because it makes financial sense to buy a $200 US PC that can do everything they need it to do.
It may right now. Then they may find that it doesn't, especially if they want a decent financial program to manage their money. Oh, nevermind.. Seriously though, there will come a time when they want to do something, and can't. Or try to add a printer they also bought at walmart, and it won't work. Then they'll be told "that only works on Windows." Suddenly, they may hate Linux.
They will get introduced to Linux for the first time, perhaps as their first PC EVER, and will love it. They will stick with this machine for at least 5 years, as it will be able to handle all the basic tasks they need it for, and when it dies or they need another, they will look for another LINUX PC to replace it with.
I think this is a lot of wishful thinking on your part. Until Linux does have the drivers and the applications, I foresee these people getting frustrated, and choosing to buy Windows next time around.
Well, the US government allows a bill to be submitted by virtually anyone to a representative. Is there a particular reason someone in the Executive branch shouldn't be allowed to suggest a bill?
All this because people can't face reality and deal with taxes.
Actually its all because people can't deal with reality and themselves pay to educate their kids, hire police to sit around and hand out fines for things which aren't dangerous, demand that kids not be able to play violent video games, or even be bothered to ensure they can support themselves and their family without outside assistance.
Ahh, I see. If I sign a contract without reading it, like for cell service, that's my tough shit. But if I do the same myself, suddenly there's no legal weight to the changes?
Well, others here have claimed that the number gen was rewritten for Xp and Vista. I never said it shouldn't be checked out on those systems.
So, what do you suggest to protect against this potential threat that already isn't in place? How much will it cost in time / money? Will that investment be worthwhile if the investigation proves XP and Vista AREN'T affected?
You're assuming they didn't create another algorithm. Its entirely possible they did. We don't know; so making an assumption either way is pretty foolish. All that is certain is that 2000 is affected, and people concerned should act only on that fact.
Well, fair enough, but I think you're crazy. I see very few thin people who are as fit as their weight would suggest. They don't look like marathon runners, they look like runway models.
I see more of a happy medium between those extremes. It is amazing though how much weight you can lose if you eat right and have some level of activity. I've seen plenty of people that fit that mold.
Go to a national park and watch "normal" weight people over age 25 or so hike up trails. Most get about 500 yards before they start puffing and thinking about taking a break. Given that our remote ancestors routinely walked 20 miles a day cross country, this is not good news. We weren't designed for such a low energy output lifestyle. It's like driving a Ferarri in 1st gear all the time.
Not great, but being unable to hike for a few minutes doesn't lead to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and the host of other problems associasted with obesity.
Nope. Try here, or do a little googling. For women anything over 32% body fat is bad news. For men it should be under 25%. Optimal is about 5-10% for men, 15-20% for women.
Fine, but my point was more that BMI is a pretty lousy number to use at all more than anything else.
(and I'm not even gonna get into 14th amendment jurisprudence)
Please do.
but to answer the questions in your last paragraph: Yes, Yes, (Yes, to be repetitive), Yes, and probably not.
Can you point me to where he indicated he would take such actions? I certainly didn't see it on his site.
He's probably just--how did you put it?--another right wing wackjob trying to hide his agenda. That must be it.
Certainly seems that way. Why does he need to become president to undo the violations to our Consitution? Where is he hyping the bills he introduced to remove the organizations I mentioned? Instead his big section on Life & Liberty is overturning Roe v Wade, for what reason I can't fathom. He may as well add Brown v Board of Education of Topeka to that list.
Don't worry; I don't much care of the left wing nut jobs using children to hide their agendas either.
I never said your risk was not increased. However, when evaluating risk, you must also evaluate time spent doing something. A low risk task performed three times a day has a greater chance of causing an accident than a single high risk task.
The reason is probably because modern humans normally achieve a lower weight by eating less, but not by eating better, or by more exercise. So there are plenty of girls out there who are skinny, "normal" BMI, but are also 35% fat by weight, which is not healthy.
I think people that starve themselves thin are the exception. Most that get thin do so by eating better and exercise. I can attest that it works, even if I miss pizza. Also, women carry more fat so 35% may not be unhealthy at all, especially if most of that fat is in their chest. I know a woman that is short and probably had that body fat years ago before breast reduction, when her chest was an H cup.
BTW, I've seen a similiar message come into vogue recently. Men should have a waist under 40" (by some experts), or under 35" (by the guys who wrote "You on a Diet".) I understand and accept the general premise, but the guy at 5'7" is going to still be a little chubby while I (at 6'2") would be showing some serious ribs.
Um, not so sure about that. I'm 6'2", and my waste is currently 34". I still have a little bit of a gut on myself too... no where close to showing ribs, except when lying down, and even then you only see where my rib cage stops, not the individual ribs. I could probably (and hopefully) burn the last bit of fat and be down to a 32" or 30" waist, and I don't think I'd be showing ribs.
Perhaps if you have almost no muscle mass that could be the case, but I doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why everyone says to use VPNs when most decent database servers offer encrypted connections already.
You're missing something here - if you leave the DB port open, you must give your application/applet the necessary credentials to log in to the database; hence you're providing those to the outside. If you use a webservice, you may have the user authenticate himself
Huh? You can do that for the db server as well; it prompts for the credentials that will connect to the database. Most databases even have encrypted connections built in.
but also you can sanity-check data before forwarding it to the database.
That's certainly true.
If you don't take any precaution with your data, you're going to lose, no matter how many layers -- but somehow I can't find myself agreeing that giving the raw DB socket and passing all necessary authentication info to the world at large within the applet I'm sending out is a good way either. (of course, you can try and lock down the DB user so that the user within the DB can't do much damage, but you're still opening a hole through which you might also try and hack for other DB accounts with more permissions).
I don't see why managing logins which a web service uses is different than managing the logins for a database server. There's no need to have the application use one logon for everyone.
Those with poor eyesight should be wearing glasses / contacts. A slightly larger than normal font can be used for all ballots.
Currently, its too easy to steal an election with e-voting machines. It can be done with paper, but its harder. I'd rather stick to older methods until newer ones can be proven more reliable and tamper proof.
Your job next election then: ensure each voting booth in Orange County, CA has enough paper ballots in the proper languages, including (but not exclusive to) English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Also keep braille ballots on hand.
Ok, I can handle that. First, we'll make English the only offical language of the country. There. No need for the other languages. So now we just have braille and English. I think that's feasible.
No, you're wrong. You were the one saying you could make a case for libel. That's a legal term, and if you think you can make a case that the OP libeled the representative, YOU need to prove it. Just as the representitive would need to prove the same.
Even forgetting about proving the truthfulness of the OP's statement, the representative would still need to prove his reputation or standing in the community was damaged as a result of the OP's post. If you like, feel free to prove that part of the case and forget about whether or not the OP's statement was true at all.
If you can't prove damages, there is no libel.
Huh? I've never heard anyone say Walmart that didn't mean exactly Walmart.
Also, its a regional thing that people call cola sodas "Coke." Again, almost everywhere I've heard Coke to mean coke and pepsi to mean pepsi. Just that coke is sold at more places than pepsi.
I would argue that almost anything bought at walmart is of poor quality.
But because it makes financial sense to buy a $200 US PC that can do everything they need it to do.
It may right now. Then they may find that it doesn't, especially if they want a decent financial program to manage their money. Oh, nevermind.. Seriously though, there will come a time when they want to do something, and can't. Or try to add a printer they also bought at walmart, and it won't work. Then they'll be told "that only works on Windows." Suddenly, they may hate Linux.
They will get introduced to Linux for the first time, perhaps as their first PC EVER, and will love it. They will stick with this machine for at least 5 years, as it will be able to handle all the basic tasks they need it for, and when it dies or they need another, they will look for another LINUX PC to replace it with.
I think this is a lot of wishful thinking on your part. Until Linux does have the drivers and the applications, I foresee these people getting frustrated, and choosing to buy Windows next time around.
Well, the US government allows a bill to be submitted by virtually anyone to a representative. Is there a particular reason someone in the Executive branch shouldn't be allowed to suggest a bill?
Actually what you're doing (even without using the internet) may already be considered illegal gambling in your state. That's the case in many states.
All this because people can't face reality and deal with taxes.
Actually its all because people can't deal with reality and themselves pay to educate their kids, hire police to sit around and hand out fines for things which aren't dangerous, demand that kids not be able to play violent video games, or even be bothered to ensure they can support themselves and their family without outside assistance.
Ok, now prove that the rep's reputation or standing was actually hurt from that statement. Oh, and prove that what the OP said ISN'T true.
Ahh, I see. If I sign a contract without reading it, like for cell service, that's my tough shit. But if I do the same myself, suddenly there's no legal weight to the changes?
Because its very unlikely that my leaving will ruin the company, but my being terminated unexpectely may well ruin my life, even if for a time?
Well, others here have claimed that the number gen was rewritten for Xp and Vista. I never said it shouldn't be checked out on those systems.
So, what do you suggest to protect against this potential threat that already isn't in place? How much will it cost in time / money? Will that investment be worthwhile if the investigation proves XP and Vista AREN'T affected?
Its not as simple as you make it out to be.
Of course you realize this only applies to dates where only two digits are specified, such as a CSV file, older Excel sheets, etc.
You're assuming they didn't create another algorithm. Its entirely possible they did. We don't know; so making an assumption either way is pretty foolish. All that is certain is that 2000 is affected, and people concerned should act only on that fact.
You act as it its intentional. Its not.
Your mention of a lawsuit is just absurd. Nice try at a strawman though.
No they don't; they EOLed Windows 2000 a while ago, IIRC.
Well, fair enough, but I think you're crazy. I see very few thin people who are as fit as their weight would suggest. They don't look like marathon runners, they look like runway models.
I see more of a happy medium between those extremes. It is amazing though how much weight you can lose if you eat right and have some level of activity. I've seen plenty of people that fit that mold.
Go to a national park and watch "normal" weight people over age 25 or so hike up trails. Most get about 500 yards before they start puffing and thinking about taking a break. Given that our remote ancestors routinely walked 20 miles a day cross country, this is not good news. We weren't designed for such a low energy output lifestyle. It's like driving a Ferarri in 1st gear all the time.
Not great, but being unable to hike for a few minutes doesn't lead to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and the host of other problems associasted with obesity.
Nope. Try here, or do a little googling. For women anything over 32% body fat is bad news. For men it should be under 25%. Optimal is about 5-10% for men, 15-20% for women.
Fine, but my point was more that BMI is a pretty lousy number to use at all more than anything else.
You seem incorrigible
Not at all.
(and I'm not even gonna get into 14th amendment jurisprudence)
Please do.
but to answer the questions in your last paragraph: Yes, Yes, (Yes, to be repetitive), Yes, and probably not.
Can you point me to where he indicated he would take such actions? I certainly didn't see it on his site.
He's probably just--how did you put it?--another right wing wackjob trying to hide his agenda. That must be it.
Certainly seems that way. Why does he need to become president to undo the violations to our Consitution? Where is he hyping the bills he introduced to remove the organizations I mentioned? Instead his big section on Life & Liberty is overturning Roe v Wade, for what reason I can't fathom. He may as well add Brown v Board of Education of Topeka to that list.
Don't worry; I don't much care of the left wing nut jobs using children to hide their agendas either.
Honestly they could have already; they ASSUME the same fault is in XP and higher. Not a great assumption.
I never said your risk was not increased. However, when evaluating risk, you must also evaluate time spent doing something. A low risk task performed three times a day has a greater chance of causing an accident than a single high risk task.
The reason is probably because modern humans normally achieve a lower weight by eating less, but not by eating better, or by more exercise. So there are plenty of girls out there who are skinny, "normal" BMI, but are also 35% fat by weight, which is not healthy.
I think people that starve themselves thin are the exception. Most that get thin do so by eating better and exercise. I can attest that it works, even if I miss pizza. Also, women carry more fat so 35% may not be unhealthy at all, especially if most of that fat is in their chest. I know a woman that is short and probably had that body fat years ago before breast reduction, when her chest was an H cup.
BTW, I've seen a similiar message come into vogue recently. Men should have a waist under 40" (by some experts), or under 35" (by the guys who wrote "You on a Diet".) I understand and accept the general premise, but the guy at 5'7" is going to still be a little chubby while I (at 6'2") would be showing some serious ribs.
Um, not so sure about that. I'm 6'2", and my waste is currently 34". I still have a little bit of a gut on myself too... no where close to showing ribs, except when lying down, and even then you only see where my rib cage stops, not the individual ribs. I could probably (and hopefully) burn the last bit of fat and be down to a 32" or 30" waist, and I don't think I'd be showing ribs.
Perhaps if you have almost no muscle mass that could be the case, but I doubt it.