On the surface this sounds valid, but you completely miss the obvious. The FBI, as well as other 3 letter agencies, are _creating_ software for the purpose of hacking into people's computers _illegally_. The FBI is not taking over some criminal botnet to harvest data, they are not intercepting malware C&C data to find things, they are creating their own malware for the purposes of performing illegal activities.
That fact alone should exemplify how wrong this is, since they are not only breaking laws regarding Constitutional issues. They are also breaking US and International law covering hacking, wire tapping, and computer espionage. You know, the same shit they were trying to slap Aran Schwarts with 70 years in prison for laws.
To use a drug analogy, the FBI can not start producing cocaine to find and arrest buyers. That is illegal, and repeatedly been reinforced as illegal.
Computer vulnerabilities don't exist by nature, people must create methods of making computers vulnerable. A program with a buffer overflow exploit would not be vulnerable without the code to exploit the program deficiency. If you truly believe computers should be fair game, then you should also believe that it's perfectly fine for someone to steal your car because locks are imperfect and can be bypassed. (Had to throw in the tried and tested car analogy also..)
Social media helps keep you in a nice little bubble, where you're never exposed to information you might not like.
You don't like or they don't like? It is impossible to know the difference, and the latter is at least as likely as the former (perhaps more so).
Psychology tells us we(in general) don't like information that challenges our biases. Is anyone else afraid that Facebook and Google are unintentionally driving us all towards ignorance?
No argument with the first part. The second part I very much disagree with. Huge Businesses and Governments don't do things accidentally, and to believe they have all these "accidents" indicates that _you_ don't want your biases challenged. What you attempting to imply is simply irrational. Huge sums of money are spent on engineering strategies. Claiming anything was something "we didn't know would happen" means that they should fire every single "expert" on their panels and black list them from future hire. Except the later part does not happen, so they did "know it would happen". In fact they intended for it to happen, or they would have used a different strategy.
No conspiracy necessary: happy people pay more attention to ads(citation available if anyone cares), they try to make us happy, trying to make us happy keeps us dumb, and it all serves everyone's short term interests, and no ones' long term interests.
I think you need to (re) read the definition of a conspiracy. Do us all a favor and stick with the dictionary definition.
Pretty much a standard architecture decisions that people are making, then bothered by the predictable results.
Client < - > Server ( Firewall < - > Application Layer with authentication < - > NAS )
You can scale any of the 3 server side layers as needed, add encryption to the client or application layer, and have granular control.
The issue is really that people (E.G. CEO/CFO/Shareholders) don't want to "PAY" for a proper architecture. If you don't build it secure, don't bitch when the solution is not secure. If you don't build it to scale, don't bitch when the solution can not scale.
Perhaps an "incentive" for Pharmaceutical companies who are making money hand over fist with other drugs would be to make a drug that would cure or vaccinate against a horrible disease because, i don't know...it's the right thing to do?
Ha ha, that is hilarious! Seriously, the reason they have massive profits is because they don't care about society as much as themselves. Why on earth would they suddenly become altruistic, when they are not altruistic about any other opportunity to "SELL" medicine to make lots of profits? Think really really hard about that for a minute and you will glean why your comment is so funny.
The doctors treating patients has nothing to do with big pharmaceutical companies that view a plague as an opportunity to cash in. That's like comparing soldiers to politicians. Soldiers would not lie to start a war, and would not fight very hard if they knew the cause was unjust. Politicians on the other hand.. well study up on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. etc..
Under HIPAA and PCI you are also supposed to disclose information on breaches (and yes, this is considered a breach). Disclosure is not unique to DOD in the slightest. The difference is obviously in how breaches are handled. HIPAA can result in severe fines as opposed to being jailed for treason (both extremes). The only punishment available to PCI is a loss of accreditation.
I will however admit that neither the DOD, PCI, or HIPAA encourage disclosures. HIPAA's minimum fine layout probably causes many people to keep their lips sealed when a breach occurs.
The most obvious difference is that PCI and HIPPA do not have the same auditing requirements as NISPOM/JFAN. It's easier to get away with minor breaches if nobody is looking. Getting away with them does not mean that the standards don't require disclosure, it just means people don't get caught.
And you know that the evidence is legitimate how exactly? Oh, you don't because it's "secret". You don't know the evidence is legitimate, and can't prove it. If it's gathered illegally it has to be good? Nope, sorry
Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure how multi-select would work, nor the mini-map so I'll take a peek at the interface. I use notapad++ when stuck in Windows, sounds like Sublime would be a good replacement. L&F, fast search, and interactive step through, all possible with grep/ed/awk/sed/vi, etc...
As said above, I think that the tool depends on the job. Claiming CLI based editors are dead is simply not true. Dead for your job, perhaps, but no more dead than a a shell in the bigger picture. When working on hundreds to thousands of servers having knowledge of vi or emacs makes a person more productive. When programming a nice UI with syntax checking, spell check for documentation, sniplet management, etc... will make a person more productive. Pick the right tool for the right job, all is well.
No, you don't have to prove innocence! The prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that Google snooped brings up questions, so if this is the only evidence they have the guy will walk (assuming he goes to Jury trial and does not accept a plea).
The intent to distribute you just make up out of thin air, stop with the hand waiving and stick to the case.
Based on the arresting officers comments, they were tracking this guy because he was previously convicted. They were not able to catch him doing anything wrong, which should bring up even more questions about Google finding something when investigators could not. I don't believe it would have been difficult for a cop to get a warrant on the guy if there was actually suspicion.
If this was a random Google employee that was accidentally mailed the photo I may feel differently. I have been working on Servers for over 25 years, and I have never gone though people's mailboxes or files. I have complied with warrants and provided copies of data, but never gone though someone's crap. With no warrant, I think Google did wrong. I'm not biased, I think any company that volunteers your data to law enforcement without a warrant is at least violating the trust of their customers.
Before you "but but.. murder" how would you like to be arrested because you sent a still image from Saw2 to a friend (or any of the millions of murders depicted on tv or in movies, and a measurable percentage of those are children being murdered)? I personally am not into movies so don't worry too much about that one, but I know people that are.
Anyone that trusts a Government known for parallel construction (framing people) or Google (a company known to be handing 3 letter agencies private data) should have their head examined. On this site, I should not have to mention how easy it is to forge file ownership, date stamps on files, email, chat, and logs for the latter two. In case you are not a techie, it's pretty damn easy.
I have designed, built, tested, audited, and supported security compliant environments for over 2 decades. A decade at a DOD site, and about the same time afterwards with PCI and HIPPA compliance. In many cases, you need to report seeing things you are not supposed to see. "Forget" is illegal in many cases, so claiming it's a viable answer is dangerous.
That said, from TFA it does not appear to be a legal issue here. Just warning that it's not good advice in general.
The biggest single thing to put into your debugging arsenal is test data. Need to debug mail, send test mail. Need to test encryption/decryption, make dummy files to encrypt and test. A user can't do something, provide them test data to work with that you know is clean. A user has a display problem, have them bring up the application with NO data loaded. These are extra steps, but worthwhile steps. If users complain about loading test data explain it to them.
The second biggest thing for you to have handy is a big dose of honesty. If you open something confidential, make sure that someone knows you saw it (you report to someone as an IT professional, even if it's the CEO directly). If you have to access a users desktop, ask them to watch and make sure you don't open a file that they may not want you to see. If you have to open something you know is sensitive, get permission first (preferably in writing).
There are surely exceptions (Edward Snowden), but that's a much longer discussion. Sysadmins by nature have access to more than any single person in the company. Good sysadmins don't flaunt or take advantage of that fact.
On *nix OS's I use Midnight Commander editor (mcedit) if it's available, nano or pico if it's not, and only resort to vi when the system is obnoxious about using it (like editing crontab or passwd files, which BTW I do with MC anyway despite the archaic warnings.)
In other words, you really don't have a lot of knowledge regarding *nix OSes.
I have no idea what would warn you about editing a password file or crontab, because "crontab -e" does not care what editor you use and there is no similar command for modifying passwd (usermod is arg based, as is useradd and userdel). Possibly something in midnight commander, which is not a tool that power users would use with any regularity. Even the few people I know that use MC in Linux won't use mcedit. It would help for you to learn what the EDITOR and VISUAL environment variables do. Not knowing that vim can do syntax highlighting shows that you really don't try very hard to learn either.
Nobody needs to use VIM or Emac's anymore unless that's what they are comfortable using.
Except the people working on *nix OSes for a living.
Look, it's fine that you are primarily a Windows user but even Windows has shown with Powershell that a powerful CLI increases productivity by leaps and bounds. Having vim/vi (or even emacs) in the same shell is extremely powerful, and something Windows still lacks.
Pointing at a forum for the editor is probably not what the person you responded to was looking for when asking their question. Except for the "Beautiful Interface" which somehow translates to "Fun" I don't see anything on the list that VI/VIM can't do already.
I personally don't mind graphical text editors, but when managing thousands of servers I find them impractical. I can ssh -> VI something and move on to the next task. Writing a bunch of code or documentation, I prefer a graphical interface. Each has their purpose.
Re:We need a better "press" 4 collective sensemaki
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem is not mine, the problem is yours. You are attempting to conflate an economic system into a form of government, or trying to conflate a government into a form of economics. Either way is wrong!
I'll go further and state that you know you are wrong, as evidenced by your overblown use of adjective in your second paragraph. No, it does not present the appearance of knowledge.
There are countless others who wrote about economics and government, but to claim it is "cherry picked" is laughable. Why is it laughable? Simple, the United States of America, which we are discussing, was intended to have Capitalism as it's form of economics. Capitalism is derived from the works of one of those authors. The form of Government we have was defined by Socrates in "The Republic". Should I really assume a 3rd party interpretation (and possible corruption) of the original thoughts and writings over the original thoughts and writings? The answer to that is NO!
You may be fair if you only claimed that the last member of the list as "cherry picked". I'd counter any such argument by stating that Milton Friedman was ignored by our politicians who carried on with Keynesian policies regardless of who was pointing out it's failures. Friedman's principles were never implemented or tried, even by the so called "great conservative" Reagan who dismantled numerous protections against monopoly during his two terms in office and started the massive shift of wealth in the hands of very few with "Trickle Down Economics".
Re:We need a better "press" 4 collective sensemaki
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
False claim much?
But you do need to accept, once and for all, that economy can't be left to itself.
Where exactly do I state or even imply that the economy can be left to itself? The fact that I state "Enforced regulation is all that's required." should make it abundantly clear that the economy can not be left to itself.
Any claim you make that socialism and communism are required to fix issues are pure rubbish.
Go read and comprehend what Socrates stated in the allegory of the artisan 2,500 years ago. Go read what Adam Smith stated repeatedly in his works defining "Capitalism". Read Milton Friedman's works and comprehend what he wrote. All three of those people were for a "FREE" Democratic Republic style of Government, not socialism or communism. All three tell you that the primary role of Government in an economy is to enforce regulations to stop monopolization.
To claim that you need a particular form of government to achieve this ignores history, period.
There is not a press. What is this, communism, comrade?
You have not paid any attention to what's been happening with media in the US have you? Broadcast and Print media is all primarily owned by the same people. If talking points are not followed journalists are fired. I have no idea how you missed the leaks about the New York Post, CNN, FOX, and *NBC, and hell even the AP. A few of these leaks were even mentioned in some places (though not covered as stories or discussed beyond the mention). Each outlet is controlling output and following administration provided talking points. Having to have stories approved by 3 letter government agencies before running them, and blacking out content that could harm the administration provided talking points.
It's not "communism", that's a false paradigm. Seems like you also missed the reports that the US has turned into a fascist oligarch by a couple large universities. Having a controlled media is surely a sign of a society that is not free, but communism is not the only form of government that is "not free".
Re:We need a better "press" 4 collective sensemaki
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't agree that the only way to fix the issue is by the communist path. You don't need a complete re-distribution to fix things, you only need to dismantle a very small number of monopolies (including financial monopolies).
Start with media, and break up the monopoly. Having 90% of all media owned by 4 people is why we lack rational discussion of issues and have a public that knows more about a celebrity than a political decision that could impact their lives for the rest of their lives. Deregulation broke this.
Financially, our woes are not due to the 1% but rather the.01%. Lock this down and redistribute their wealth and every poor person in the country would be set for life. Bill Gates (easy yet deserving target) does not need 50 billion dollars. Simply knocking him down to 1 billion would return enough money to purchase 490,000 people houses valued at 100,000, and Mr. Gates would still be rich. Now imagine how many people could own a home and be out of poverty if you corrected all of the.01% (There are at least a few with way more wealth than him). Deregulation broke this.
Banks need to be broken up and regulations put back in place to ensure that a bank can not operate in more than one state. Too big to fail should not exist, and deregulation broke this.
Notice that deregulation broke each of these things, all starting around the 1970s. As more and more deregulation occurred, more and more corruption has happened.
These three things are not the only things that need to be done, but each is a valid starting point. It should also be obvious that since deregulation caused failures, it does not require communism to "fix" things. Enforced regulation is all that's required.
Either a sock puppet account trying to make sure people are getting messages about how "cool" the concept is. Or. Someone nerd raging and believing everything technology is cool. Or Finally. The person chose an offensive vocabulary to express their thoughts.
I'll lean toward the last thing, mixed with the middle.
I will state that the rating of "Troll" is wrong also, and it agrees with my thoughts (though I'd have expressed them differently). If "Fuck the CIA" can get modded insightful (in a thread yesterday), so can this.
Could you please explain what govement employee financial records and private lives have to do with freedom of speech? It doesn't.
When they are trying to demand access to everyone else' private lives, it sure as hell does. You are going to have to do better than an elementary fallacy to sway people away from hsthompson69's point.
TV, Phones, and Radio are not inherently bad. People originally saw broadcast media as a way of sharing knowledge. A voice with further range.
That said, just like speaking it also has the potential to be misused and harm the public. I'll argue that it has been used for exactly that purpose for decades as well, with the last couple of decades reaching an absurd level of hypnotizing the public and keeping them away from reality.
As we see with other forms of broadcast, the "Internet" has also been abused for the same purposes. You only need to look into why Wikimedia started blocking congressional IPs from anonymous edits to know that it's not just "conspiracy wackos" trying to mislead people. It should also be obvious that this media format has been used for more nefarious purposes than simply misleading or providing false information. Once again, you can point to government agencies as the largest culprits.
Given what we know about people abusing media and technology, why the hell would you want your toaster and fridge connected to the internet? In nearly every case, the risk drastically outweighs any potential benefit of having the device internet accessible in my opinion. Not only do you have to worry about an insurance company looking at your fridge and increasing your rates because you have too many high carb foods (which is on track to be 100% government controlled), but you also have to worry about a hacker turning up the temperature so your food spoils. Even better, automatically ordering food for you when that gets plugged in (already being touted as why you should have a fridge on the internet), because you can probably afford $68,000.00 worth of steak right?
Nobody cares what you do, but at least stop bullshitting people and using fallacy to make yourself look better than someone who has weighed the risks and does not want this type of technology invading their home.
Currently there is nothing from stopping you from rigging up your house and appliances in numerous fashions to have all your "stuff" shared on the internet. Do it up, just don't bitch when your "stuff" gets destroyed or stolen. More importantly, stop trying to imply it's a great idea and everyone should do it.
Which trial are you referring to exactly? As I stated, MS was found guilty numerous times ant there were several separate cases tried under Bush which were all successful. The first BIG trial was under Clinton, and Bush blocked (technically heavily influenced) more Federal trials.
While I agree this is possible, I will also submit that it's only a partial truth because not all banks and credit cards are the same. Many credit card companies will provide negative scoring for paying off a debt completely every month. I have had 2 credit cards cancelled for exactly that reason (years apart mind you, not simultaneous). The reason I got the cards was for the same reason you claimed worked, to build a score by making small purchases and paying it off each month. Except that credit card companies can cancel your cards for any reason, and in my case did after a few months of purchasing small goods and paying off the balance every month.
American Express has worked this way for as long as they have been in business, but you pay an annual fee to have the card so it's still not "free" and you are not being paid to have the card.
As the old saying goes, if something appears too good to be true it probably is. That said, I'd be interested in looking at your actual monthly statements to see how much you actually pay for credit card use. Call me cynical, but nobody rides for free. Perhaps if your "company" is contributing more, you would appear to pay less, etc...
I will grant you that big banks are worse than credit unions, and perhaps your credit cards are both through your credit union. Doubtful that you would get frequent flier miles that way, but surely possible.
The DOJ did not fail to convict Microsoft of being an illegal monopoly, they failed to _PUNISH_ them after they were found guilty. Microsoft paid lobbyists to convince congress that breaking them apart (as was done with AT&T) would cause further economic collapse. Yeah yeah, so much for the separation of powers...
It was not just the DOJ that failed to punish MS. Several states had similar successful trials where MS was found guilty, and the payout from MS was "free MS products for Education and Government" for N years ( in some cases 5 years ). I wrote numerous articles and papers back then explaining how this was not a punishment, but obviously a method of further entrenching their monopoly.
Nope, I did not forget. I do not state nor do I imply that other politicians are innocent of wrong doing. I simply gave a starting point for starting to deal with the corruption.
Jackson and Sharpton both have livelihoods that depend on race issues. Both are known for race baiting, and have made careers doing just that. This is why even when no racial issues exist, they fabricate information to make them exist. These are not the only two that manipulate discrimination issues for cash. We saw recently that the NAACP will give bigots a lifetime achievement award, if the bigot gives enough money to the NAACP.
That statement should not imply that real issues of discrimination do not exist, but rather that real issues of discrimination are diminished because of these types of people.
It's not a shakedown for money, because that would only let you cash a check once. He wants constant racial issues, and instigates them when ever possible.
Slashdot Mirror
On the surface this sounds valid, but you completely miss the obvious. The FBI, as well as other 3 letter agencies, are _creating_ software for the purpose of hacking into people's computers _illegally_. The FBI is not taking over some criminal botnet to harvest data, they are not intercepting malware C&C data to find things, they are creating their own malware for the purposes of performing illegal activities.
That fact alone should exemplify how wrong this is, since they are not only breaking laws regarding Constitutional issues. They are also breaking US and International law covering hacking, wire tapping, and computer espionage. You know, the same shit they were trying to slap Aran Schwarts with 70 years in prison for laws.
To use a drug analogy, the FBI can not start producing cocaine to find and arrest buyers. That is illegal, and repeatedly been reinforced as illegal.
Computer vulnerabilities don't exist by nature, people must create methods of making computers vulnerable. A program with a buffer overflow exploit would not be vulnerable without the code to exploit the program deficiency. If you truly believe computers should be fair game, then you should also believe that it's perfectly fine for someone to steal your car because locks are imperfect and can be bypassed. (Had to throw in the tried and tested car analogy also..)
Social media helps keep you in a nice little bubble, where you're never exposed to information you might not like.
You don't like or they don't like? It is impossible to know the difference, and the latter is at least as likely as the former (perhaps more so).
Psychology tells us we(in general) don't like information that challenges our biases. Is anyone else afraid that Facebook and Google are unintentionally driving us all towards ignorance?
No argument with the first part. The second part I very much disagree with. Huge Businesses and Governments don't do things accidentally, and to believe they have all these "accidents" indicates that _you_ don't want your biases challenged. What you attempting to imply is simply irrational. Huge sums of money are spent on engineering strategies. Claiming anything was something "we didn't know would happen" means that they should fire every single "expert" on their panels and black list them from future hire. Except the later part does not happen, so they did "know it would happen". In fact they intended for it to happen, or they would have used a different strategy.
No conspiracy necessary: happy people pay more attention to ads(citation available if anyone cares), they try to make us happy, trying to make us happy keeps us dumb, and it all serves everyone's short term interests, and no ones' long term interests.
I think you need to (re) read the definition of a conspiracy. Do us all a favor and stick with the dictionary definition.
Pretty much a standard architecture decisions that people are making, then bothered by the predictable results.
Client < - > Server ( Firewall < - > Application Layer with authentication < - > NAS )
You can scale any of the 3 server side layers as needed, add encryption to the client or application layer, and have granular control.
The issue is really that people (E.G. CEO/CFO/Shareholders) don't want to "PAY" for a proper architecture. If you don't build it secure, don't bitch when the solution is not secure. If you don't build it to scale, don't bitch when the solution can not scale.
Really? So we had "Cloud" back in 1984 when NFS was released?
Perhaps an "incentive" for Pharmaceutical companies who are making money hand over fist with other drugs would be to make a drug that would cure or vaccinate against a horrible disease because, i don't know...it's the right thing to do?
Ha ha, that is hilarious! Seriously, the reason they have massive profits is because they don't care about society as much as themselves. Why on earth would they suddenly become altruistic, when they are not altruistic about any other opportunity to "SELL" medicine to make lots of profits? Think really really hard about that for a minute and you will glean why your comment is so funny.
The doctors treating patients has nothing to do with big pharmaceutical companies that view a plague as an opportunity to cash in. That's like comparing soldiers to politicians. Soldiers would not lie to start a war, and would not fight very hard if they knew the cause was unjust. Politicians on the other hand.. well study up on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. etc..
Under HIPAA and PCI you are also supposed to disclose information on breaches (and yes, this is considered a breach). Disclosure is not unique to DOD in the slightest. The difference is obviously in how breaches are handled. HIPAA can result in severe fines as opposed to being jailed for treason (both extremes). The only punishment available to PCI is a loss of accreditation.
I will however admit that neither the DOD, PCI, or HIPAA encourage disclosures. HIPAA's minimum fine layout probably causes many people to keep their lips sealed when a breach occurs.
The most obvious difference is that PCI and HIPPA do not have the same auditing requirements as NISPOM/JFAN. It's easier to get away with minor breaches if nobody is looking. Getting away with them does not mean that the standards don't require disclosure, it just means people don't get caught.
And you know that the evidence is legitimate how exactly? Oh, you don't because it's "secret". You don't know the evidence is legitimate, and can't prove it. If it's gathered illegally it has to be good? Nope, sorry
Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure how multi-select would work, nor the mini-map so I'll take a peek at the interface. I use notapad++ when stuck in Windows, sounds like Sublime would be a good replacement. L&F, fast search, and interactive step through, all possible with grep/ed/awk/sed/vi, etc...
As said above, I think that the tool depends on the job. Claiming CLI based editors are dead is simply not true. Dead for your job, perhaps, but no more dead than a a shell in the bigger picture. When working on hundreds to thousands of servers having knowledge of vi or emacs makes a person more productive. When programming a nice UI with syntax checking, spell check for documentation, sniplet management, etc... will make a person more productive. Pick the right tool for the right job, all is well.
No, you don't have to prove innocence! The prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that Google snooped brings up questions, so if this is the only evidence they have the guy will walk (assuming he goes to Jury trial and does not accept a plea).
The intent to distribute you just make up out of thin air, stop with the hand waiving and stick to the case.
Based on the arresting officers comments, they were tracking this guy because he was previously convicted. They were not able to catch him doing anything wrong, which should bring up even more questions about Google finding something when investigators could not. I don't believe it would have been difficult for a cop to get a warrant on the guy if there was actually suspicion.
If this was a random Google employee that was accidentally mailed the photo I may feel differently. I have been working on Servers for over 25 years, and I have never gone though people's mailboxes or files. I have complied with warrants and provided copies of data, but never gone though someone's crap. With no warrant, I think Google did wrong. I'm not biased, I think any company that volunteers your data to law enforcement without a warrant is at least violating the trust of their customers.
Before you "but but.. murder" how would you like to be arrested because you sent a still image from Saw2 to a friend (or any of the millions of murders depicted on tv or in movies, and a measurable percentage of those are children being murdered)? I personally am not into movies so don't worry too much about that one, but I know people that are.
Anyone that trusts a Government known for parallel construction (framing people) or Google (a company known to be handing 3 letter agencies private data) should have their head examined. On this site, I should not have to mention how easy it is to forge file ownership, date stamps on files, email, chat, and logs for the latter two. In case you are not a techie, it's pretty damn easy.
I have designed, built, tested, audited, and supported security compliant environments for over 2 decades. A decade at a DOD site, and about the same time afterwards with PCI and HIPPA compliance. In many cases, you need to report seeing things you are not supposed to see. "Forget" is illegal in many cases, so claiming it's a viable answer is dangerous.
That said, from TFA it does not appear to be a legal issue here. Just warning that it's not good advice in general.
The biggest single thing to put into your debugging arsenal is test data. Need to debug mail, send test mail. Need to test encryption/decryption, make dummy files to encrypt and test. A user can't do something, provide them test data to work with that you know is clean. A user has a display problem, have them bring up the application with NO data loaded. These are extra steps, but worthwhile steps. If users complain about loading test data explain it to them.
The second biggest thing for you to have handy is a big dose of honesty. If you open something confidential, make sure that someone knows you saw it (you report to someone as an IT professional, even if it's the CEO directly). If you have to access a users desktop, ask them to watch and make sure you don't open a file that they may not want you to see. If you have to open something you know is sensitive, get permission first (preferably in writing).
There are surely exceptions (Edward Snowden), but that's a much longer discussion. Sysadmins by nature have access to more than any single person in the company. Good sysadmins don't flaunt or take advantage of that fact.
On *nix OS's I use Midnight Commander editor (mcedit) if it's available, nano or pico if it's not, and only resort to vi when the system is obnoxious about using it (like editing crontab or passwd files, which BTW I do with MC anyway despite the archaic warnings.)
In other words, you really don't have a lot of knowledge regarding *nix OSes.
I have no idea what would warn you about editing a password file or crontab, because "crontab -e" does not care what editor you use and there is no similar command for modifying passwd (usermod is arg based, as is useradd and userdel). Possibly something in midnight commander, which is not a tool that power users would use with any regularity. Even the few people I know that use MC in Linux won't use mcedit. It would help for you to learn what the EDITOR and VISUAL environment variables do. Not knowing that vim can do syntax highlighting shows that you really don't try very hard to learn either.
Nobody needs to use VIM or Emac's anymore unless that's what they are comfortable using.
Except the people working on *nix OSes for a living.
Look, it's fine that you are primarily a Windows user but even Windows has shown with Powershell that a powerful CLI increases productivity by leaps and bounds. Having vim/vi (or even emacs) in the same shell is extremely powerful, and something Windows still lacks.
Pointing at a forum for the editor is probably not what the person you responded to was looking for when asking their question. Except for the "Beautiful Interface" which somehow translates to "Fun" I don't see anything on the list that VI/VIM can't do already.
I personally don't mind graphical text editors, but when managing thousands of servers I find them impractical. I can ssh -> VI something and move on to the next task. Writing a bunch of code or documentation, I prefer a graphical interface. Each has their purpose.
The problem is not mine, the problem is yours. You are attempting to conflate an economic system into a form of government, or trying to conflate a government into a form of economics. Either way is wrong!
I'll go further and state that you know you are wrong, as evidenced by your overblown use of adjective in your second paragraph. No, it does not present the appearance of knowledge.
There are countless others who wrote about economics and government, but to claim it is "cherry picked" is laughable. Why is it laughable? Simple, the United States of America, which we are discussing, was intended to have Capitalism as it's form of economics. Capitalism is derived from the works of one of those authors. The form of Government we have was defined by Socrates in "The Republic". Should I really assume a 3rd party interpretation (and possible corruption) of the original thoughts and writings over the original thoughts and writings? The answer to that is NO!
You may be fair if you only claimed that the last member of the list as "cherry picked". I'd counter any such argument by stating that Milton Friedman was ignored by our politicians who carried on with Keynesian policies regardless of who was pointing out it's failures. Friedman's principles were never implemented or tried, even by the so called "great conservative" Reagan who dismantled numerous protections against monopoly during his two terms in office and started the massive shift of wealth in the hands of very few with "Trickle Down Economics".
False claim much?
But you do need to accept, once and for all, that economy can't be left to itself.
Where exactly do I state or even imply that the economy can be left to itself? The fact that I state "Enforced regulation is all that's required." should make it abundantly clear that the economy can not be left to itself.
Any claim you make that socialism and communism are required to fix issues are pure rubbish.
Go read and comprehend what Socrates stated in the allegory of the artisan 2,500 years ago. Go read what Adam Smith stated repeatedly in his works defining "Capitalism". Read Milton Friedman's works and comprehend what he wrote. All three of those people were for a "FREE" Democratic Republic style of Government, not socialism or communism. All three tell you that the primary role of Government in an economy is to enforce regulations to stop monopolization.
To claim that you need a particular form of government to achieve this ignores history, period.
There is not a press. What is this, communism, comrade?
You have not paid any attention to what's been happening with media in the US have you? Broadcast and Print media is all primarily owned by the same people. If talking points are not followed journalists are fired. I have no idea how you missed the leaks about the New York Post, CNN, FOX, and *NBC, and hell even the AP. A few of these leaks were even mentioned in some places (though not covered as stories or discussed beyond the mention). Each outlet is controlling output and following administration provided talking points. Having to have stories approved by 3 letter government agencies before running them, and blacking out content that could harm the administration provided talking points.
It's not "communism", that's a false paradigm. Seems like you also missed the reports that the US has turned into a fascist oligarch by a couple large universities. Having a controlled media is surely a sign of a society that is not free, but communism is not the only form of government that is "not free".
I don't agree that the only way to fix the issue is by the communist path. You don't need a complete re-distribution to fix things, you only need to dismantle a very small number of monopolies (including financial monopolies).
Start with media, and break up the monopoly. Having 90% of all media owned by 4 people is why we lack rational discussion of issues and have a public that knows more about a celebrity than a political decision that could impact their lives for the rest of their lives. Deregulation broke this.
Financially, our woes are not due to the 1% but rather the .01%. Lock this down and redistribute their wealth and every poor person in the country would be set for life. Bill Gates (easy yet deserving target) does not need 50 billion dollars. Simply knocking him down to 1 billion would return enough money to purchase 490,000 people houses valued at 100,000, and Mr. Gates would still be rich. Now imagine how many people could own a home and be out of poverty if you corrected all of the .01% (There are at least a few with way more wealth than him). Deregulation broke this.
Banks need to be broken up and regulations put back in place to ensure that a bank can not operate in more than one state. Too big to fail should not exist, and deregulation broke this.
Notice that deregulation broke each of these things, all starting around the 1970s. As more and more deregulation occurred, more and more corruption has happened.
These three things are not the only things that need to be done, but each is a valid starting point. It should also be obvious that since deregulation caused failures, it does not require communism to "fix" things. Enforced regulation is all that's required.
Either a sock puppet account trying to make sure people are getting messages about how "cool" the concept is. Or. Someone nerd raging and believing everything technology is cool. Or Finally. The person chose an offensive vocabulary to express their thoughts.
I'll lean toward the last thing, mixed with the middle.
I will state that the rating of "Troll" is wrong also, and it agrees with my thoughts (though I'd have expressed them differently). If "Fuck the CIA" can get modded insightful (in a thread yesterday), so can this.
Could you please explain what govement employee financial records and private lives have to do with freedom of speech? It doesn't.
When they are trying to demand access to everyone else' private lives, it sure as hell does. You are going to have to do better than an elementary fallacy to sway people away from hsthompson69's point.
You also recycled the brain cells denoting the difference between "grant it" and "granted"....
Sorry, I could not resist...
TV, Phones, and Radio are not inherently bad. People originally saw broadcast media as a way of sharing knowledge. A voice with further range.
That said, just like speaking it also has the potential to be misused and harm the public. I'll argue that it has been used for exactly that purpose for decades as well, with the last couple of decades reaching an absurd level of hypnotizing the public and keeping them away from reality.
As we see with other forms of broadcast, the "Internet" has also been abused for the same purposes. You only need to look into why Wikimedia started blocking congressional IPs from anonymous edits to know that it's not just "conspiracy wackos" trying to mislead people. It should also be obvious that this media format has been used for more nefarious purposes than simply misleading or providing false information. Once again, you can point to government agencies as the largest culprits.
Given what we know about people abusing media and technology, why the hell would you want your toaster and fridge connected to the internet? In nearly every case, the risk drastically outweighs any potential benefit of having the device internet accessible in my opinion. Not only do you have to worry about an insurance company looking at your fridge and increasing your rates because you have too many high carb foods (which is on track to be 100% government controlled), but you also have to worry about a hacker turning up the temperature so your food spoils. Even better, automatically ordering food for you when that gets plugged in (already being touted as why you should have a fridge on the internet), because you can probably afford $68,000.00 worth of steak right?
Nobody cares what you do, but at least stop bullshitting people and using fallacy to make yourself look better than someone who has weighed the risks and does not want this type of technology invading their home.
Currently there is nothing from stopping you from rigging up your house and appliances in numerous fashions to have all your "stuff" shared on the internet. Do it up, just don't bitch when your "stuff" gets destroyed or stolen. More importantly, stop trying to imply it's a great idea and everyone should do it.
Which trial are you referring to exactly? As I stated, MS was found guilty numerous times ant there were several separate cases tried under Bush which were all successful. The first BIG trial was under Clinton, and Bush blocked (technically heavily influenced) more Federal trials.
While I agree this is possible, I will also submit that it's only a partial truth because not all banks and credit cards are the same. Many credit card companies will provide negative scoring for paying off a debt completely every month. I have had 2 credit cards cancelled for exactly that reason (years apart mind you, not simultaneous). The reason I got the cards was for the same reason you claimed worked, to build a score by making small purchases and paying it off each month. Except that credit card companies can cancel your cards for any reason, and in my case did after a few months of purchasing small goods and paying off the balance every month.
American Express has worked this way for as long as they have been in business, but you pay an annual fee to have the card so it's still not "free" and you are not being paid to have the card.
As the old saying goes, if something appears too good to be true it probably is. That said, I'd be interested in looking at your actual monthly statements to see how much you actually pay for credit card use. Call me cynical, but nobody rides for free. Perhaps if your "company" is contributing more, you would appear to pay less, etc...
I will grant you that big banks are worse than credit unions, and perhaps your credit cards are both through your credit union. Doubtful that you would get frequent flier miles that way, but surely possible.
The DOJ did not fail to convict Microsoft of being an illegal monopoly, they failed to _PUNISH_ them after they were found guilty. Microsoft paid lobbyists to convince congress that breaking them apart (as was done with AT&T) would cause further economic collapse. Yeah yeah, so much for the separation of powers...
It was not just the DOJ that failed to punish MS. Several states had similar successful trials where MS was found guilty, and the payout from MS was "free MS products for Education and Government" for N years ( in some cases 5 years ). I wrote numerous articles and papers back then explaining how this was not a punishment, but obviously a method of further entrenching their monopoly.
Nope, I did not forget. I do not state nor do I imply that other politicians are innocent of wrong doing. I simply gave a starting point for starting to deal with the corruption.
Jackson and Sharpton both have livelihoods that depend on race issues. Both are known for race baiting, and have made careers doing just that. This is why even when no racial issues exist, they fabricate information to make them exist. These are not the only two that manipulate discrimination issues for cash. We saw recently that the NAACP will give bigots a lifetime achievement award, if the bigot gives enough money to the NAACP.
That statement should not imply that real issues of discrimination do not exist, but rather that real issues of discrimination are diminished because of these types of people.
It's not a shakedown for money, because that would only let you cash a check once. He wants constant racial issues, and instigates them when ever possible.