Great, this happens just in time for us to be broke when it comes time to start supporting our do-nothing, war-protesting, draft-dodging, Clinton-voting, social security and "drug benifit" grabbing, questionable accounting practicing, baby boomer parents.
The lab for the UNIX password sync tool includes the following instruction:
3.
Telnet to UNIX machine, and verify that now you have to log on to user2 with the new password.
The emphasis on "Telnet" is mine.
I have to say that I am hesitant to use any security product whose instructions include the word "telnet" without preceding it with the words "do not use."
This was the first thing I thought of when I turned my mind to the problem of in-flight security. The problem I see with this is that it/would/ prevent the whole flying-into-buildings thing, but wouldn't really prevent hijackings. Practically, there has to be two way communications between he cabin and cockpit. Maybe relayed through a tower, but then you need two different freqs and xmitters AND operators. Not practical.
Oh, and of course, a "thick metal wall" might have a negative impact on the flight characteristics of the bird;-) Have you seen Saving Private Ryan?
I'm pretty bent out of shape by the whole "airport security" thing.
I don't have and answer, but the problem is that politics suck. We are losing our civil liberties daily for no real benifit.
To wit: if two guys with box-cutters can hijack an airplane, then two guys armed with somthing like "CIA-001 or CIA-003 could. And anyone who is comitted enough to commit suicide by flying a plane into a building is surely comitted enough to get through security with one of these up his ass. I say that not to be crude, but to illustrate what we are up against.
The bottom line is that tightening the noose around our own neck is not going to save us. Handing box-cutters out to passengers as they board would be more effective than every security measure implemented before September 11, or since.
Recall that they fourth plane didn't hit a building. The passengers of United 93 went through the same screening process as everyone else. The difference was that those passengers took a stand. A hell of a lot harder stand than the one it would take on our part to reverse the tide of cowardace that we are sweeping our freedoms away in.
Your government can't protect you. Your government is not obligated to protect you (see South v. Maryland).
Yeah, you're right. I can only hold two alcohols in my head at a time, for some reason. I realized my error after posting. I'm a nitwit too;-)
Anyway, correcting that fact doesn't change the conclusion.
"If only Peter hadn't accidentally opened his fuelcell, distilled the alcohol, vaporized it, mixed it with air, copressed it and heated it in a closed container . .." Comeon.
This is not nearly as disturbing as something I heard the other day.
The actually sell these little wooden sticks that are tipped with chemicals such that when rubbed against the box the chemicals ignite and, in turn, ignite the wood.
If you think that is bad, they even have special ones that will ignite when rubbed against any number of common items, such as the "zipper" on so-called "Levi's." (Which, I understand, are allowed on aircraft.)
The really amazing part is that these things will slip right past even the most astute airport screener and can be purchased at any grocery store without a special license!.
I have heard rumors about a secret type of these things, which I hear are called "matches," though I don't know what it is they are supposed to "match," that are made from chemically treated paper. This type supposedly comes in "books" that are so small they can be easily hidden in the palm of one's hand, and are essentially undetectable.
We live in ghastly days . ..
-Peter
PS: Rubbing alcohol doesn't explode, nitwit. Oh, and I don't know where you are from, but where I live "boosting" a car and "jumping" a car are two totally different things.
I don't have a great feel for what the size of the thing is, but how about having it crafted into an urn for your Grandfather? Or carved into a small bust? Or have one side cut/polished and have an image of him carved in relief?
The issue to me is that they (being the movie and record companies) want to have it both ways. They want to sell me a package that includes a piece of physical media (which I own) and a license to view/listen to what is recorded on that media.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that 1. I legally can't back that medium up and 2. if that medium becomes damaged my license to view/listen seems to evaporate.
Case in point. I irreparably scratched a DVD from Fox (The Phantom Menace). My only recourse is to buy replacement media and a second license to view the movie. Clearly that license is the expensive part. I don't see how this is "fair."
Bottom line is that IMO when we lost the right to make copies for backup the copyright holders took on the responsibility to do at-cost media replacement, but they aren't living up to that responsibility.
Of course the bills mentioned in the article would turn the tide back, but neither seem to have any real chance of even coming to a vote.
While I am sure Linus is on the money with the techical details I think his conclusion is out in left-field.
Ideally all backups would be to failure-proof media from a LVM disk snapshot, giving a 100% successful restore rate of 100% consistant, moment-in-time data.
Here on Earth, however, you have to weigh all the variables when doing backups. This advice ignores some pretty important stuff.
Does he contend that you are better off with a cpio/tar backup once a week (that's "100%" reliable (except that tape is SUCH shitty media)) than with a 99.9% (by his own numbers) reliable weekly plus daily incrementals?
Most people can't/won't do a full nightly, but dump can do incrementals pretty painlessly.
I think that either he didn't really think this through or he never meant for his advice to be so broadly applied.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, this happens just in time for us to be broke when it comes time to start supporting our do-nothing, war-protesting, draft-dodging, Clinton-voting, social security and "drug benifit" grabbing, questionable accounting practicing, baby boomer parents.
We're screwed.
-Peter
The emphasis on "Telnet" is mine.
I have to say that I am hesitant to use any security product whose instructions include the word "telnet" without preceding it with the words "do not use."
-Peter
which is perfectly legitmate.
But the idea that Microsoft can parlay their usless reputation in security into profit is laughable.
-Peter
I found the article unclear, and thought it would be funnier to omit the word "implies."
-Peter
This was the first thing I thought of when I turned my mind to the problem of in-flight security. The problem I see with this is that it /would/ prevent the whole flying-into-buildings thing, but wouldn't really prevent hijackings. Practically, there has to be two way communications between he cabin and cockpit. Maybe relayed through a tower, but then you need two different freqs and xmitters AND operators. Not practical.
;-) Have you seen Saving Private Ryan?
Oh, and of course, a "thick metal wall" might have a negative impact on the flight characteristics of the bird
-Peter
I'm pretty bent out of shape by the whole "airport security" thing.
I don't have and answer, but the problem is that politics suck. We are losing our civil liberties daily for no real benifit.
To wit: if two guys with box-cutters can hijack an airplane, then two guys armed with somthing like "CIA-001 or CIA-003 could. And anyone who is comitted enough to commit suicide by flying a plane into a building is surely comitted enough to get through security with one of these up his ass. I say that not to be crude, but to illustrate what we are up against.
The bottom line is that tightening the noose around our own neck is not going to save us. Handing box-cutters out to passengers as they board would be more effective than every security measure implemented before September 11, or since.
Recall that they fourth plane didn't hit a building. The passengers of United 93 went through the same screening process as everyone else. The difference was that those passengers took a stand. A hell of a lot harder stand than the one it would take on our part to reverse the tide of cowardace that we are sweeping our freedoms away in.
Your government can't protect you. Your government is not obligated to protect you (see South v. Maryland).
Let's take the plunge and live free, huh?
-Peter
Yeah, you're right. I can only hold two alcohols in my head at a time, for some reason. I realized my error after posting. I'm a nitwit too ;-)
." Comeon.
Anyway, correcting that fact doesn't change the conclusion.
"If only Peter hadn't accidentally opened his fuelcell, distilled the alcohol, vaporized it, mixed it with air, copressed it and heated it in a closed container . .
-Peter
You deserve to burn for wearing chords.
-Peter
This is not nearly as disturbing as something I heard the other day.
.
.
The actually sell these little wooden sticks that are tipped with chemicals such that when rubbed against the box the chemicals ignite and, in turn, ignite the wood.
If you think that is bad, they even have special ones that will ignite when rubbed against any number of common items, such as the "zipper" on so-called "Levi's." (Which, I understand, are allowed on aircraft.)
The really amazing part is that these things will slip right past even the most astute airport screener and can be purchased at any grocery store without a special license!
I have heard rumors about a secret type of these things, which I hear are called "matches," though I don't know what it is they are supposed to "match," that are made from chemically treated paper. This type supposedly comes in "books" that are so small they can be easily hidden in the palm of one's hand, and are essentially undetectable.
We live in ghastly days . .
-Peter
PS: Rubbing alcohol doesn't explode, nitwit. Oh, and I don't know where you are from, but where I live "boosting" a car and "jumping" a car are two totally different things.
You're quite the subversive, aren't you? You didn't even mention that this phone runs Linux!
-Peter
You know, I think you're right. Man I feel dumb.
-Peter
What pants?
-Peter
What the fuck? He wields Narsil (renamed Anduril when it was re-forged).
Thorin took up Orcist, which is the sister blade to Gandalf's Glamdring, both discovered in the troll-horde.
-Peter
I don't have a great feel for what the size of the thing is, but how about having it crafted into an urn for your Grandfather? Or carved into a small bust? Or have one side cut/polished and have an image of him carved in relief?
-Peter
I thought they're would be alot of web sights about how much hire expenses are out their, but there nowhere too be found.
Weird.
-Peter
Who needs a bandwagon?
Anyway, I don't hate him. It's just that his ideas are consistently misguided and his writing style is annoyingly sophomoric.
-Peter
I think that "Exclude Stories from the Homepage (x) JonKatz" has crossed over into the "sensible default" category.
How about it, guys. Why not spare newbies and ACs the pain?
-Peter
. . . to get some ideas for research grant proposals.
The dog-to-human translator is taken. Maybe I'll go for tomacco.
-Peter
Nope, you've added a few other factors to the mix.
1. It is my freaking hardware.
2. That isn't really about media backups or replacement.
So, that is an alternative that would alleviate the "replacement media, replacement license" problem, but it is unacceptable for other reasons.
-Peter
I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
The issue to me is that they (being the movie and record companies) want to have it both ways. They want to sell me a package that includes a piece of physical media (which I own) and a license to view/listen to what is recorded on that media.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that 1. I legally can't back that medium up and 2. if that medium becomes damaged my license to view/listen seems to evaporate.
Case in point. I irreparably scratched a DVD from Fox (The Phantom Menace). My only recourse is to buy replacement media and a second license to view the movie. Clearly that license is the expensive part. I don't see how this is "fair."
Bottom line is that IMO when we lost the right to make copies for backup the copyright holders took on the responsibility to do at-cost media replacement, but they aren't living up to that responsibility.
Of course the bills mentioned in the article would turn the tide back, but neither seem to have any real chance of even coming to a vote.
-Peter
What is the deal?
You comment seems to be on-topic and at least interesting if not insightful.
You have an ultra low ID#.
And you post at 0. (And crapflood your own journal.)
What gives?
-Peter
David Bowie is the most enlightened artist that I know of as far as this goes. I don't care for his music, but he seems to "get it."
:-(
OTOH, his site is flash only
Now, flame on about how he is already rich, blah, blah.
-Peter
Only for plaintiffs, because we don't have loser pays :-(
-Peter
While I am sure Linus is on the money with the techical details I think his conclusion is out in left-field.
Ideally all backups would be to failure-proof media from a LVM disk snapshot, giving a 100% successful restore rate of 100% consistant, moment-in-time data.
Here on Earth, however, you have to weigh all the variables when doing backups. This advice ignores some pretty important stuff.
Does he contend that you are better off with a cpio/tar backup once a week (that's "100%" reliable (except that tape is SUCH shitty media)) than with a 99.9% (by his own numbers) reliable weekly plus daily incrementals?
Most people can't/won't do a full nightly, but dump can do incrementals pretty painlessly.
I think that either he didn't really think this through or he never meant for his advice to be so broadly applied.
-Peter
It isn't in the handbook. I'm pretty sure it isn't in the fieldbook either.
-Peter