From the story: 'If the FBI's third most-important priority claims just over 3.5 percent of its active agents, how many agents and FBI resources are dedicated to the remaining Top Ten priorities?'" It must be less than or equal to 24.5% since 3.5% * 7 = 24.5% !
Oh, was that supposed to be rhetorical? Sorry. This slashdot, we are all pedants, with the occasional pedantess, here.
Just because he set himself up for it doesn't mean you have to bite. I thought my response was rather mild. His post had at least three cases of "false I know better than anyone else-itis" and not only did I succinctly and correctly explain the situation - as did many of the other responses, some less accurately than others, he only got one word-play jab back.
But when he comes along with the self-righteous indignation, obscenities, and nerd-macho strutting about "confidence" -- that's not just setting himself up, that's begging for it. Then to really make an ass of himself, he decides to put me on his "foes" list. As if that means anything beyond a public declaration of a playground tantrum -- "I HATE you Billy! Wah!"
Be gracious to people, even when they're wrong and you're right (or try to, at least)... it makes the world a better place. Sure right and wrong is part of it, but its more about turnabout being fair play. The kid dishes it out, but he's a got a real thin skin.
How about just not being an asshole about it? Seriously.. you're like a bunch of wolves. Just because you have no confidence in anything you say doesn't mean the rest of don't. Lol! Poor little quanta, doesn't know the difference between being confident and being smug. If you were really such a manly man speaker, you wouldn't be whining right now.
Oh FUCK OFF. Can't a guy *forget* something now and then? Don't be so smug in your posts and you won't get flamed when you make a mistake. You set yourself up for it. It's not like I was the only one to bite.
Yes I can! And you are absolutely incorrect. You're still thinking of thermonuclear arms as elements of international politics, mere tools of "diplomacy" (e.g. North Korea.) They're not... they're machines meant to commit mass-murder on a truly Biblical scale! Please save the bullshit for someone who can't recognize it. You provide no supporting evidence for stuff like this:
Consequently, the only rational assumption that can reasonably be made when dealing with a nuclear power of any magnitude is that it will arbitrarily use its weapons! Really, the best you've got are random italics, scary adjectives and plenty of exclamation marks!
You actually have a good point or two buried in all that bullshit, but no one can take you seriously with all that ranting and raving. You discredit yourself long before you make a salient point.
Uhhh, why is a regular user allowed to create a file owned by root? A regular user is not allowed to create a file owned by root. You have created a hard link, it is only a directory entry in a directory you have permission to write to, and directory entries do not contain file ownership information, that is stored in the inode for the file. There is only one inode no matter how many hard links there are.
Awesome, the semantics of directory permissions are not even honored anymore.. anyone else smell a kludge here? No. But I do smell a newbie ranter.
$ ls -ld/tmp drwxrwxrwt 14 root root 69632 2007-09-27 21:25/tmp/
See that 't' in the directory permissions on/tmp? That's the sticky bit. When set on a directory, it means that only file owners and delete the directory entries for their files.
Take away the sticky bit and you will be able to delete the foo hard link just fine.
Re:misleading...Re:Asshole Stereotype
on
When Not to Use chroot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
'incompetent people implementing security solutions are a real problem.'
Man, things like this make me want to NOT switch to Linux... Even though I had a better experience with Ubuntu that I did Vista. What's your problem with that statement? It's absolutely true and it is not limited to linux.
Let's take it a few more steps further as an example:
'incompetent people designing bridges are a real problem.'
'incompetent people performing surgery are a real problem.'
'incompetent people running the government are a real problem.' Do you have a problem with any of those statements?
If you don't even know what chroot() is, then you are not the target of the man's complaint.
Can the same be said for any number of other Middle Eastern countries? No need to answer: it's a rhetorical question. You simply cannot reasonably compare the situation between two superpowers (who both had a lot to lose and knew it) and two (or more) two-bit dictatorships run by quasi-religious fanatics who are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems. Yet, despite all of that rhetoric, you can not reasonably assume that just because they aren't the US and Russia that they will arbitrarily use those weapons.
And just like the original poster, you too make random claims that don't support your argument - the fact that they "are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems" is far more of a deterrent than being on opposite sides of the planet. If you think that Iran is some sort of nuclear Jamestown, then its pretty clear that you have been drinking too much PR kool-aid.
I never once disputed that the equipment's own software should be improved. But you really seem to think that such improvement is the only necessary step. I'll leave off the dissection of your ignorance about encrypted links, isolated networks and physical security.
"Isolated networks" can still be infiltrated (rogue controller, unguarded cable somewhere between the controller and the power plant, etc.). That is not the kind of safety you want or need. Bullshit. When infiltration requires physical access, hell of a lot more secure than when most anyone can telnet directly in. The fact that you used quotes around the phrase "Isolated networks" - a standard infosec term, and that you think unguarded cables between the controller and power plant are a risk when encrypted links are the norm of such implementations suggest to me that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about.
The test was not to find out if the control network is properly defended. The test was to find out if the local safety mechanisms are sufficient to prevent "normal" remote control instructions from destroying the generator, instructions that don't require an intrusion into the local computer systems. So, you are saying that this entire sub-thread is moot because the OP's claim that the control networks need to be connected to semi-public networks for reporting purposes is irrelevant to the test that was conducted? Gee thanks for participating.
Power plants need bidirectional connections because they constantly report their current output and capabilities to the "grid" controller, who also constantly sends them adjustments. So what's stopping the grid controller from being on an isolated network?
If you believe the OP's premise, it's the links to "to headquarters" for "daily reports" and "to the manufacturer" for "performance evaluation, maintenance scheduling and troubleshooting" that require connections to a public network. Those uses are all unidirectional.
There's one problem with that: in today's world, data has to flow back to headquarters. Then use a Data Diode it is a physically secure link that provides one-way data flow (it's essentially half of a fibre-optic pair, the transmit half is connected up while the receive half has been removed).
The creation of Israel was far from ideal, but it was also far from terrorism. (Any logical and even handed consideration of the state's formation acknowledges major problems with Arab leadership during that time period, mainly the fact that they went directly to war) Maybe your claim is right, maybe it is wrong, but how does your claim support your premise? What does "they went directly to war" have to do with israel not being created through terrorism?
While you have many points in your post I can agree with, the suggestion that Iran is a suitable nation for nuclear weapons is ridiculous. His abuses of human rights within Iran, especially with regards to women, prove that that administration would be willing to do things to other nations that even America wouldn't consider. Maybe your claim is right, maybe it is wrong. But that is some damn poor justification you've got there. The soviet union had terrible human rights problems, china still has terrible human rights problems. They both have had nukes for quite some time and nobody has been hurt yet.
They have, however, said they want to take Israel off the map. Yeah, now we know you haven't done your research. Look up the history of that quote. It was purposely mistranslated in order to provide sound-bite fodder for arguments just like the one you are making. What he really said was a lot less inflammatory.
There are lots of examples. For just one, not many years back we saw certain computer memory manufacturers who were charged with "dumping"... even though none of those companies had a corner on the market. They WERE trying, though... which is the point. If there are lots of examples, then you need to find another one. The memory dumping issue was NOT about monopoly, it was about unfair trade practices for imported goods. Micron, the only large-scale US memory manufacturer accused the koreans of dumping and the us state department supported Micron as a form of protectionism.
Come up with a real example of a domestic case of a 'dumping' conviction that did not involve leveraging or maintaining a monopoly market and I'll gladly accede.
Does anybody really think that Apple won't make money on it at $399? I completely agree.
if they are dumping it on the market for a loss -- then they are prosecutable under antitrust laws. But now you are off in la-la land. There is nothing preventing a company from selling below cost. It's only when they are doing it to maintain monopoly of a market. And while its arguable that Apple's 90%+ hold of the mp3 player market is a monopoly, they don't have anything even close to a monopoly in the phone market.
But even in the US, the majority of severe crimes are done by people without records. The solution isn't to expand the records until they include everyone. AFIS, at least, isn't about expanding at all. As far as I know, there hasn't been a significant expansion of finger-print collecting practices other than the aliens-entering-the-us BS, which in terms of raw numbers, hasn't been that big of a deal.
This contract announcement is really a non-event. This AFIS system has been running for 10 years now and has had one round of hardware upgrades in that time. This is the second round because, in part, the hardware they are running on is going to move off HP's support list in another year or two.
The new hardware is both cheaper and faster than the old hardware so they get a performance boost out of it too. Really nothing to see here unless you are HP, Lockmart or one of their subcontractors who get a piece of this pie.
But then Comey, acting AG, refused to sign off on it. There's an interesting theory that Rumsfeld couldn't, for some reason, couldn't stop authorizing the program, (Perhaps blackmail?) so deliberately rendered himself unable to be AG during a time when the papers had to be signed. Just a minor fix: Rumsfeld => Ashcroft.
2008 PRNewsWire - Today Symantec and the NSA announce a merger. The NSA will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Symantec Corp. In exchange, Symantec will issue 100,000 shares of common stock to each member of Congress.
It's realtively standard practice in such a lawsuit to include every party and let the judge determine which ones are actually potentially liable or not. Not to mention generate some paying work for a different lawyer for each party too. What a freaking racket - just about anything a lawyer does causes other lawyers to get paid. Cha-ching!
I know this will sound like "well duh" to those in the US, but my Canadian brain has a hard time wrapping itself around the concept. Most in the US don't even know those alphabetics can pull those stunts on us either, we are still the land of the free and the home of the brave as far as anyone who regularly watches cnn/fox knows.
"ByteandSwitch is searching the World's Biggest SANs, and has compiled a list of 5 candidate with networks supports 10+ Petabytes of active storage. What? That's nothing. I've got 100 petabytes just for my pr0n collection!
Anyone who thinks the cameras have anything to do with deterring crime are fooling themselves. They're meant as a means to control the populace and nothing more. You are so off base with that remark!!! Why don't you show some respect for the people taking care of us!!! The cameras are also great for watching naked women.
My understanding is that many of the people were not 'captured on the battlefield' but in fact were turned in for a reward. How does that impact your conclusion? According to This American Life episode 331: Habeas Schmabeas only about 6 percent of those in Guantanamo were "captured on the battlefield."
That episode won a Peabody Award by the way - the same award that The Daily Show won for its election coverage. It is well worth a listen, especially for those who have faith that their government is doing the right thing in Guantanamo.
Like the story of one pair of brothers who were editors of a newspaper in Pakistan and were picked up because they published a political cartoon - one that offered a reward of about $25 for the capture of Bill Clinton after he ordered an attack on that aspirin factory in Africa. One of the brothers was released after 3 years, the other is apparently still in lockup.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, was that supposed to be rhetorical?
Sorry. This slashdot, we are all pedants, with the occasional pedantess, here.
But when he comes along with the self-righteous indignation, obscenities, and nerd-macho strutting about "confidence" -- that's not just setting himself up, that's begging for it. Then to really make an ass of himself, he decides to put me on his "foes" list. As if that means anything beyond a public declaration of a playground tantrum -- "I HATE you Billy! Wah!" Be gracious to people, even when they're wrong and you're right (or try to, at least)... it makes the world a better place. Sure right and wrong is part of it, but its more about turnabout being fair play. The kid dishes it out, but he's a got a real thin skin.
If you were really such a manly man speaker, you wouldn't be whining right now.
You set yourself up for it. It's not like I was the only one to bite.
You actually have a good point or two buried in all that bullshit, but no one can take you seriously with all that ranting and raving. You discredit yourself long before you make a salient point.
$ ls -ld
drwxrwxrwt 14 root root 69632 2007-09-27 21:25
See that 't' in the directory permissions on
That's the sticky bit. When set on a directory, it means that only file owners and delete the directory entries for their files.
Take away the sticky bit and you will be able to delete the foo hard link just fine.
Man, things like this make me want to NOT switch to Linux... Even though I had a better experience with Ubuntu that I did Vista. What's your problem with that statement?
It's absolutely true and it is not limited to linux.
Let's take it a few more steps further as an example: 'incompetent people designing bridges are a real problem.'
'incompetent people performing surgery are a real problem.'
'incompetent people running the government are a real problem.'
Do you have a problem with any of those statements?
If you don't even know what chroot() is, then you are not the target of the man's complaint.
And just like the original poster, you too make random claims that don't support your argument - the fact that they "are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems" is far more of a deterrent than being on opposite sides of the planet. If you think that Iran is some sort of nuclear Jamestown, then its pretty clear that you have been drinking too much PR kool-aid.
I never once disputed that the equipment's own software should be improved. But you really seem to think that such improvement is the only necessary step. I'll leave off the dissection of your ignorance about encrypted links, isolated networks and physical security.
If you believe the OP's premise, it's the links to "to headquarters" for "daily reports" and "to the manufacturer" for "performance evaluation, maintenance scheduling and troubleshooting" that require connections to a public network. Those uses are all unidirectional.
Come up with a real example of a domestic case of a 'dumping' conviction that did not involve leveraging or maintaining a monopoly market and I'll gladly accede.
This contract announcement is really a non-event. This AFIS system has been running for 10 years now and has had one round of hardware upgrades in that time. This is the second round because, in part, the hardware they are running on is going to move off HP's support list in another year or two.
The new hardware is both cheaper and faster than the old hardware so they get a performance boost out of it too. Really nothing to see here unless you are HP, Lockmart or one of their subcontractors who get a piece of this pie.
2008 PRNewsWire - Today Symantec and the NSA announce a merger. The NSA will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Symantec Corp. In exchange, Symantec will issue 100,000 shares of common stock to each member of Congress.
Coming soon to a network near you - NortonNSA!
They're meant as a means to control the populace and nothing more. You are so off base with that remark!!!
Why don't you show some respect for the people taking care of us!!!
The cameras are also great for watching naked women.
That episode won a Peabody Award by the way - the same award that The Daily Show won for its election coverage. It is well worth a listen, especially for those who have faith that their government is doing the right thing in Guantanamo.
Like the story of one pair of brothers who were editors of a newspaper in Pakistan and were picked up because they published a political cartoon - one that offered a reward of about $25 for the capture of Bill Clinton after he ordered an attack on that aspirin factory in Africa. One of the brothers was released after 3 years, the other is apparently still in lockup.