You could vote for your leader in a Bantustan too.
The Palestinian Authority is not a state. Its state borders aren't even defined much less recognized. Until it is a state, the final responsibility for the safety of Palestinians lies with Israel who claimed the land as its own in 1967.
An 80% voter turn out for those who are allowed to vote. The almost 50% of the population consisting of Palestinians refugees would probably disagree with the characterization of Israel as a democracy.
Here's the thing: Microsoft supports OpenID. It will be added to a number of products over the coming year. They believe that OpenID and Cardspace are complementary. OpenID provides decentralized single sign-on. Cardspace CAN do that but it's really strength is site-spoofing protection. If you use a Cardspace Information Card as your login for your OpenID, you get the best of both worlds. MyOpenID.com is an OpenID provider that allows you to use an infocard as the login for your OpenID for example.
By your logic shouldn't we stop treating all illness? It would seem to slow the problem of overpopulation.
I have huge concerns about overpopulation too but that doesn't mean I want to stop research into treating illness and disease. It means I choose to create 2 children or fewer in my lifetime and I encourage others to do the same. If you live for 1000 years but only create one child then we're still better off than if you lived 40 years and created 10.
While the concept of forcing users to turn their computer over to any software vendor is abhorrent to me, I don't know if the consequences of this bill are as extreme as they sound.
From my reading of the article it sounds like the bill adds additional "protections" to current law. Additionally the exemptions sound like they apply solely to this bill. That's fine because as the article notes, all of these things are already banned. If this bill replaces current laws restricting unauthorized access to computers, then we have a real problem. If this does not do so, we're in the same place we are now and this law meaningless in regards to software vendors disabling software at will.
I totally agree. As an Eagle Scout, I would happily help them. Unfortunately I'm an agnostic, non-heterosexual programmer so I agree with the sentiment.
Until the BSA moves into the 21st century they can write their own software.
You're talking about two different things. Drivers licenses, library cards and fishing licenses are simply an acknowledgement you certified as qualified for a certain privilege. Additionally, you can only require that those items be turned over with a warrant.
The Supreme Court ruled a few years back that asking a person's name if they are at a Terry Stop is constitutional. A Terry Stop is a limited form of confinement where an officer has "a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has, is, or is about to be, committed." However that is the limit of what an individual is compelled to do. You are allowed to refuse to show an ID. You may not be arrested for that refusal. If you refuse to show a driver's license at a traffic Terry Stop, your license priviliges may be rescinded but you aren't required to turn over the ID itself unless you're arrested.
The TSA isn't asking who you are. They are requiring you without reasonable suspicion to turn over your property to get onto a plane.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Um I fail to see how he said anything related to making his neighborhood a gun free zone. All he did was point out that you (or someone you know)are more likely to hurt yourself or your family (the suicide comparison was dumb) than you are using a gun to protect yourself.
Oh and just so you know, some of us people who think owning a gun is moronic support your right to have one.
Your understanding is different than mine (albeit the whole thing was confusing). When I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA we had to abide by the requirements of the Hatch Act. I was and still am involved in my local Democratic party. I was told that would be fine as long as I didn't mention I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA. There was also a proposal to cut funding in a different AmeriCorps program. (You are allowed to lobby Congress on a federal program during work time even if it is YOUR program). I was told by the State Coordinator that I shouldn't do that until my term ended in a few weeks or that I could do it but not mention that I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA.
Because of that experience I was very surprised watching John Edwards speech withdrawing from the race this year. Behind him was a line of young people all wearing AmeriCorps shirts. As much as I like Edwards and am sure the AmeriCorps volunteers meant well, they should not have been there.
I was going to suggest that too. The.NET bindings are pretty good and work well with Visual Studio's built in tools. No idea if that's what he's looking for though.
Why would Intuit spend the time to target a small market of around 5%? Additionally, consider that that 5% consists of a large portion of people who dislike proprietary software? Consider also that there are probably a number of packages that do the same thing or close to the same thing for free and that are downloadable from the shell. They could justify selling for OSX because Mac users don't think twice about spending money on a piece of software. Linux users almost never spend money on software.
Hate Crimes and Hate Speech are two separate issues. Hate Speech is almost universally allowed in the United States. The only major exemption I can think of is burning crosses for the purpose of intimidation. Personally I have mixed feelings on that exemption but I can appreciate why some people think it should be banned. Making hate speech illegal is basically making something a "thoughtcrime".
Hate crimes though are not "thoughtcrime". We're not banning the action based on what the person's opinion is; we're banning the action based on what the intent or purpose of the actor is. This is similar to how we treat murder for hire or premeditated murder more harshly than a crime of passion.
Nobody read it. The Senate received the bill at 6 AM for a 9 AM vote. The bill ran to hundreds of pages. Not one member of Congress could have read it and understood the consequences of the bill in less than 3 hours.
Russ Feingold said at the time he wasn't necessarily opposed to the bill but couldn't vote for something with such sweeping changes without having time to read or research it. He has said since then that after reviewing it he supports about 95% of the things in the bill. He strongly opposes that other 5% that is total crap.
Once my clients are ready to deploy Vista, I'll start modifying my scripts and tools to work with Vista's stupid restrictions. How are the restrictions stupid outside of admin not running as expected? It's just the same restrictions you'd have (or should have) on any system.
The issue regarding admin not really being admin is one of designing a product to do too many things. In home use it makes perfect sense for admin to be like that. In business use it makes little to no sense. Perhaps they should have differentiated that based on SKU. Christ they had 7 of them, you'd think at least one of them could have it.
As an aside, I believe Windows Server 2008 has UAC turned off for admins by default.
I was referring mainly to the idea of every user running as an administrator which was used by most home users.
Regarding your script, UAC can be disabled for administrators (or anyone) via secpol.msc. From then on, the administrator mode will run as one would expect. Whether you can change that though is dependent on your organization's security policies.
You could install all of those on a per-user basis, provided the installer was set up to do so. As long as any registry entries modified are for the current user and the application files are kept in a location available to the current user, your application would probably work fine. It's certainly not as easy as dragging to/Applications but there's nothing stopping a developer from doing so.
No it is working as designed. To install software that will modify the system, you need to use elevated privileges. Once you have elevated privileges you can do anything you want, including installing services that autostart. This is no different than installing an additional daemon on Unix-y systems. If you feel that is a security vulnerability, how do you intend to get anything done? Just a list of some of the different services that autorun on my computer: -The base filtering engine used by the Windows Firewall -Computer Browser keeps track of other computers on the network -Plug and Play -Print spooler -Event log -Task scheduler -Firewall
If these things didn't autorun, I'd have a pretty different system. That or everything would run as an administrator and we'd be right back to Windows XP with the same problems we had before.
From my experience Supercache is a net positive. When I first installed Vista (and after SP1), it seemed like the damn hard drive ran all the time. Even when the hard drive activity stopped, opening programs were sluggish. After a few days though, programs began to start up faster. The hard drive activity calmed down significantly.
I agree with the sibling comment regarding the concept of pre-caching data in RAM. Why would we want to waste the money we spent in RAM and leave it filled with zeros? That's not to say Supercache has the whole system down pat. When games are running Supercache should turn off and it should be smarter about when it attempts to fill the cache. But how is the concept as a whole bad?
Compiz may be nice in concept. It looks great. But it doesn't always work. I couldn't go 15 minutes in Ubuntu (its the current one that starts with g.. Gusty Gibbon?) without a titlebar or a maximize or minimize button going missing. Unfortunately bugs like these make Linux look amateur which is a shame because its clearly not.
Or it will be a really convenient way to kill all NASA funding. This gives politicians easy cover for cutting the NASA budget: "You know people only donated $20 million on their taxes to NASA last year, that must be all they want". I can't say with certainty whether that would really be the result but its certainly plausable.
I've gotta agree with (the oddly named) Adolf saying that Microsoft did this ultimately for DRM seems odd considering the similar move in Linux. I think moving drivers out of the kernel, especially drivers that are less reliable, is good for reliability. I've had video drivers crash a few times on Vista. All that happens is the screen goes black for less than a second, then displays exactly as before with a small notification on the bottom right saying something about the video drivers crashing (not those words). Did Microsoft do this in part because it made DRM "better" in their minds? Absolutely. But to say it was the ultimate reason without any explicit confirmation seems like a stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
You could vote for your leader in a Bantustan too.
The Palestinian Authority is not a state. Its state borders aren't even defined much less recognized. Until it is a state, the final responsibility for the safety of Palestinians lies with Israel who claimed the land as its own in 1967.
An 80% voter turn out for those who are allowed to vote. The almost 50% of the population consisting of Palestinians refugees would probably disagree with the characterization of Israel as a democracy.
That's what I thought. A country where 50% of the adults can't vote is not a democracy.
Here's the thing: Microsoft supports OpenID. It will be added to a number of products over the coming year. They believe that OpenID and Cardspace are complementary. OpenID provides decentralized single sign-on. Cardspace CAN do that but it's really strength is site-spoofing protection. If you use a Cardspace Information Card as your login for your OpenID, you get the best of both worlds. MyOpenID.com is an OpenID provider that allows you to use an infocard as the login for your OpenID for example.
By your logic shouldn't we stop treating all illness? It would seem to slow the problem of overpopulation.
I have huge concerns about overpopulation too but that doesn't mean I want to stop research into treating illness and disease. It means I choose to create 2 children or fewer in my lifetime and I encourage others to do the same. If you live for 1000 years but only create one child then we're still better off than if you lived 40 years and created 10.
While the concept of forcing users to turn their computer over to any software vendor is abhorrent to me, I don't know if the consequences of this bill are as extreme as they sound.
From my reading of the article it sounds like the bill adds additional "protections" to current law. Additionally the exemptions sound like they apply solely to this bill. That's fine because as the article notes, all of these things are already banned. If this bill replaces current laws restricting unauthorized access to computers, then we have a real problem. If this does not do so, we're in the same place we are now and this law meaningless in regards to software vendors disabling software at will.
I totally agree. As an Eagle Scout, I would happily help them. Unfortunately I'm an agnostic, non-heterosexual programmer so I agree with the sentiment.
Until the BSA moves into the 21st century they can write their own software.
You're talking about two different things. Drivers licenses, library cards and fishing licenses are simply an acknowledgement you certified as qualified for a certain privilege. Additionally, you can only require that those items be turned over with a warrant.
The Supreme Court ruled a few years back that asking a person's name if they are at a Terry Stop is constitutional. A Terry Stop is a limited form of confinement where an officer has "a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has, is, or is about to be, committed." However that is the limit of what an individual is compelled to do. You are allowed to refuse to show an ID. You may not be arrested for that refusal. If you refuse to show a driver's license at a traffic Terry Stop, your license priviliges may be rescinded but you aren't required to turn over the ID itself unless you're arrested.
The TSA isn't asking who you are. They are requiring you without reasonable suspicion to turn over your property to get onto a plane.
Try the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Um I fail to see how he said anything related to making his neighborhood a gun free zone. All he did was point out that you (or someone you know)are more likely to hurt yourself or your family (the suicide comparison was dumb) than you are using a gun to protect yourself.
Oh and just so you know, some of us people who think owning a gun is moronic support your right to have one.
Your understanding is different than mine (albeit the whole thing was confusing). When I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA we had to abide by the requirements of the Hatch Act. I was and still am involved in my local Democratic party. I was told that would be fine as long as I didn't mention I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA. There was also a proposal to cut funding in a different AmeriCorps program. (You are allowed to lobby Congress on a federal program during work time even if it is YOUR program). I was told by the State Coordinator that I shouldn't do that until my term ended in a few weeks or that I could do it but not mention that I was an AmeriCorps*VISTA.
Because of that experience I was very surprised watching John Edwards speech withdrawing from the race this year. Behind him was a line of young people all wearing AmeriCorps shirts. As much as I like Edwards and am sure the AmeriCorps volunteers meant well, they should not have been there.
I was going to suggest that too. The .NET bindings are pretty good and work well with Visual Studio's built in tools. No idea if that's what he's looking for though.
Why would Intuit spend the time to target a small market of around 5%? Additionally, consider that that 5% consists of a large portion of people who dislike proprietary software? Consider also that there are probably a number of packages that do the same thing or close to the same thing for free and that are downloadable from the shell. They could justify selling for OSX because Mac users don't think twice about spending money on a piece of software. Linux users almost never spend money on software.
Hate Crimes and Hate Speech are two separate issues. Hate Speech is almost universally allowed in the United States. The only major exemption I can think of is burning crosses for the purpose of intimidation. Personally I have mixed feelings on that exemption but I can appreciate why some people think it should be banned. Making hate speech illegal is basically making something a "thoughtcrime".
Hate crimes though are not "thoughtcrime". We're not banning the action based on what the person's opinion is; we're banning the action based on what the intent or purpose of the actor is. This is similar to how we treat murder for hire or premeditated murder more harshly than a crime of passion.
Nobody read it. The Senate received the bill at 6 AM for a 9 AM vote. The bill ran to hundreds of pages. Not one member of Congress could have read it and understood the consequences of the bill in less than 3 hours.
:)
Russ Feingold said at the time he wasn't necessarily opposed to the bill but couldn't vote for something with such sweeping changes without having time to read or research it. He has said since then that after reviewing it he supports about 95% of the things in the bill. He strongly opposes that other 5% that is total crap.
Man I love having him as my Senator
I was referring mainly to the idea of every user running as an administrator which was used by most home users. Regarding your script, UAC can be disabled for administrators (or anyone) via secpol.msc. From then on, the administrator mode will run as one would expect. Whether you can change that though is dependent on your organization's security policies.
You could install all of those on a per-user basis, provided the installer was set up to do so. As long as any registry entries modified are for the current user and the application files are kept in a location available to the current user, your application would probably work fine. It's certainly not as easy as dragging to /Applications but there's nothing stopping a developer from doing so.
No it is working as designed. To install software that will modify the system, you need to use elevated privileges. Once you have elevated privileges you can do anything you want, including installing services that autostart. This is no different than installing an additional daemon on Unix-y systems. If you feel that is a security vulnerability, how do you intend to get anything done? Just a list of some of the different services that autorun on my computer:
-The base filtering engine used by the Windows Firewall
-Computer Browser keeps track of other computers on the network
-Plug and Play
-Print spooler
-Event log
-Task scheduler
-Firewall
If these things didn't autorun, I'd have a pretty different system. That or everything would run as an administrator and we'd be right back to Windows XP with the same problems we had before.
Comparing the United Nations to the Jim Crow era is not in the least bit a stretch...
From my experience Supercache is a net positive. When I first installed Vista (and after SP1), it seemed like the damn hard drive ran all the time. Even when the hard drive activity stopped, opening programs were sluggish. After a few days though, programs began to start up faster. The hard drive activity calmed down significantly.
I agree with the sibling comment regarding the concept of pre-caching data in RAM. Why would we want to waste the money we spent in RAM and leave it filled with zeros? That's not to say Supercache has the whole system down pat. When games are running Supercache should turn off and it should be smarter about when it attempts to fill the cache. But how is the concept as a whole bad?
Compiz may be nice in concept. It looks great. But it doesn't always work. I couldn't go 15 minutes in Ubuntu (its the current one that starts with g.. Gusty Gibbon?) without a titlebar or a maximize or minimize button going missing. Unfortunately bugs like these make Linux look amateur which is a shame because its clearly not.
Or it will be a really convenient way to kill all NASA funding. This gives politicians easy cover for cutting the NASA budget: "You know people only donated $20 million on their taxes to NASA last year, that must be all they want". I can't say with certainty whether that would really be the result but its certainly plausable.
UPnP wouldn't hurt either. To this day, I can't get video to work on AIM no matter what I do.
I've gotta agree with (the oddly named) Adolf saying that Microsoft did this ultimately for DRM seems odd considering the similar move in Linux. I think moving drivers out of the kernel, especially drivers that are less reliable, is good for reliability. I've had video drivers crash a few times on Vista. All that happens is the screen goes black for less than a second, then displays exactly as before with a small notification on the bottom right saying something about the video drivers crashing (not those words). Did Microsoft do this in part because it made DRM "better" in their minds? Absolutely. But to say it was the ultimate reason without any explicit confirmation seems like a stretch.