Even better: in Microsoft's Virtual Earth, the photos of my area are literally TEN YEARS OLD!!! And you can't claim that because I live in a small town there's no updated photos available because Google's photos were taken in the last 6 months! I think Microsoft needs to find a new source.
That only solves part of the problem. The lesser part IMO. The bigger problem is what the intruder is doing with the internet connection they're stealing from you. If they're using it to share massive amounts of movies/music, then the lawsuit will come down on YOU. If they're downloading/distributing kiddy porn, Johnny Law will be knocking on YOUR door. Now, you can keep it from happening for very long, or at least keep an endless cycle with your intruder (change key, re-cracked, change key, re-cracked, etc.), but between key changes you're vulnerable.
Another problem is that they'd have access to your upstream router where they could pull some nasty shenanigans on you as well.
Disclaimer: I have this setup myself and I don't know how to really solve these problems except to try and monitor activity on the WEP AP and rotate keys occasionally.
Wired is inconvenient (particularly when renting) and there no reason wireless can't be reasonably secure.
WEP is completely insecure, but WPA is reasonably secure (for now). AFAIK, it's only succeptable to a brute force or dictionary attack on the key (at least with the pre-shared key version). If you've set a good passphrase, then there shouldn't be too much to worry about.
No, it's not 100% secure, probably not even 90%, but it's good enough right now. WEP is not.
Say what? Sniffing the traffic necessary to crack a 128 bit WEP key takes about an hour using an active attack (at least with my laptop). It's also a "set it and forget it" process... VERY easy in an apartment setting. And unless you're specifically watching for it, you'll never know it's happening.
It doesn't take an uber-hacker either. I certainly don't qualify as even a mediocre hacker, but I can be in your network in fairly short order.
I waffle back and forth as to whether I care if someone else accesses my wireless network. On the one hand, I have at least one client on my network which would be fairly easy to get into as it has more holes in its firewall than a cheese grater (I may have even totally turned it off, can't remember). On the other hand, the worst that would happen if that box did get pwned would I'd lose my TV recordings (myth box). The far worse problem is using my internet connection for illicit purposes such as movie/music sharing, kiddy porn, etc. Obviously, I'm not that worried about it as I still have a WEP protected AP, but it's still a concern for me that I'm not quite sure what to do about.
So when archeologists of the future read this post about how a monkey flew out of my butt in the city of Richland (46 17 N, 119 16 W), which all of my co-workers witnessed, and find that this city did exist at the location specified, they'll have no choice but to believe that a monkey flew out of my butt?
Could you point me to some evidence that a monkey, in fact, did not fly out of my butt? No? That's understandable since it was independently verified by 500 of my co-workers. You want to hear it from them? Oh, sorry, the monkey was very wrathful and killed all present, but believe me, they all saw it.
Can you see where I'm going here? When you say something miraculous happened, it's up to you to provide evidence that it happened, not the other way around. And no, a single source saying that it happened and also saying that lots of people saw does not count as witnesses.
I think we could go back and forth all day about how I read his point vs. how you read his point. This is the chain of events as I saw them:
assertion: Christian founders must have believed what they were saying. counter: Lots of people believe crazy things. It doesn't make them true....
While the counter is true, it does not invalidate the assertion. I did not see the claim that said assertion -> Christianity is true (I do occationally stop reading boring posts though, can't remember if that was the case here:P). It just seemed like people were jumping on the conclusion they assumed the original poster was making without the original poster actually making it.
As far as my opinion on Jesus vs. Jones, I think the difference is time. I've wondered about what people will believe in a couple thousand years. It would seem fairly easy for survivors of Jones' cult (if there was any) to write about the miracles he performed and how the big bad establishment put him down. He, however, overcame them and ascended to heaven with the Kool-aid man (Oh Yeah!).
Who knows? Perhaps Jonesianity will be the worlds largest religion in 2000 years. There won't be anyone around who could tell the events as they actually occurred, and if by chance some records survive from our time, they are obviously the work of the devil trying to tempt the faithful away from the path.
The more I think about religion, the more contrived it sounds. I think I'll stop thinking about it... I'd rather go to heaven that to just cease existing.
You missed the point. His point was not "they were willing to die therefore what they believed was true." It was: "Would Jones' followers have drank the poison if they knew him to be a fraud?" In other words, he was not saying that christianity was true, just that the founders must have truly believed in it.
No. One of the benefits of damming for hydro-power is that the dams can be used for flow control of the river. It would take a LOT of water to overload all of them. Add that to the fact that the area is very arid and the likely-hood of flooding is almost non-existant.
Of course, a breach of the John Day or Dalles dam could be disasterous for this facility, but if that happened, I think there'd be bigger problems than some wet computers.
No, a better analogy, IMHO, is that you left your car unlocked and running in your driveway. Some crazy walks by, sees your car, hops in and drives it around the block.
Actually, I'd say it was more analogous to tracking down said pedophile and molesting him. The death penalty, at least in this country, is an "eye for an eye" type of punishment.
The line between "potential" threat and "actual" threat is blurry at best. When does that man approaching me with a knife transition from potential to actual threat? Is the fact that he has a knife threatening enough? Or do I wait until he makes some threatening gesture? What if his first threatening gesture is to plunge the knife into my gut? When should I react with deadly force to protect myself? A serial killer who has murdered several people could conceivably be thought of as a man who has just slashed at society with a knife. If a man slashed a knife at you, would you use deadly force against him to protect yourself? Or would you attempt to subdue him with non-lethal force because he only has the *potential* to take another swipe at you?
I'm not saying that it's right to execute people. My views are quite the opposite. It's just that when you make such huge generalizations, such as applying individual rights to "society," it opens the door to many interpretations. I agree with everything else you said in your prior post. It's just that, in my mind, that one statement didn't hold up and that has a tendancy to weaken the whole argument.
Upfront disclaimer: I do NOT support the death penalty because, as you pointed out, I do not believe that it provides any deterrent sufficiently greater than life in prison.
Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large.
The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense. If I have reasonable cause to believe that my life is being threaten, I may use lethal force in response. One could argue that if an individual has this right then society also has this right.
In the case of a serial killer, one could argue that executing this person is society "protecting" itself (including prison guards and other inmates if this person were merely incarcerated). This argument in not enough to persuade me as I think incarceration does sufficiently protect society from this person, but I believe that it is valid enough to negate the sentence above.
I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to the parent. I don't have any problem with your results, but his either contained a transcription error or he was just making it up. I'll reserve judgement at this point;-)
You chown'ed testbed then rm'ed testdir. That's prefectly legal and test.txt and testdir will be removed. Unless of course you did 'chown -R' in which case all the files would non-writable, except that the group would not have been changed and all the directories would still be writable by the original group and therefore you.
2 + 2 = 5. I think you must have forgotten something.
I think what differentiates the two is the term "accident."
When someone is seriously injured with a knife by another person, it is generally not an accident. In that case, having a license for knives wouldn't solve anything; as I mentioned before, license != enforcement. For automobiles, tens of thousands of people are killed each year in car "accidents" (we're using accident in the meaning of intent: very few people mean to kill others with their car).
So I guess it comes down to typical daily use. How likely is it that as you're walking down the street, you trip and stab someone with your knife, verses driving down the street, you look down and crash into another car? I don't have the actual statistics for it, but I think the latter is a bit more common.
P.S. For guns, there really is a de facto license. Most states require a concealed weapons permit and also have laws about brandishing a weapon. The net result is that you can't walk around in public with a gun visible and you must have a license to carry it concealed.
I'll agree with you there. You shouldn't lose your license for not paying your child support... maybe a finger or two, but not your license;-)
It doesn't change the fact that the point of a license is supposed to be a certification that you are "fit" to drive. I just can't see anything wrong with this idea.
I'm sorry the police in your area are so lax about enforcing vehicular laws, and I'm sorry that your DMV will issue a license to anyone and their dog, but you shouldn't blame those things on the requirement to have a license. That requirement is supposed to insure that everyone driving on public streets knows the rules, but it does nothing to force them to follow the rules. That's what the cops are for.
As they say: In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not. In other words, just because enforcement of the requirement is bad, doesn't mean the requirement itself is bad.
I vouch that, yes, historically, it was a right. One which you could lose, and one whose exercise required meeting common sense laws and regulations.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds remarkably similar to how it is now.
Must have vehicle in reasonable working condition... makes sense.
Must register vehicle... you said that was required before, so check.
Must be of appropriate age, fitness, etc... just as you said.
Must know and follow the rules of safe driving... seems pretty logical to me.
Must certify all of the above... NO WAY!!!! That's just crazy! You need to just take my word that I'm a great driver.
It's not clear? Perhaps you should check your prescription.
Let's see, which of these is more likely to get innocent people killed: a gun-fight, or a fist-fight? And lets see how well your gun does against Jack P. Terrorist's shoe-bomb.
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to add a little input. I think total unanimity is going too far. There WILL be some jackass who votes 'NO' on "No Murder." So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal. Do you propose that everyone always move away from this fellow, or is he one of the first legally sanctioned murders?
I noticed this too. In my area (very rural South-Eastern Washington), go just a few miles out of town and Google's resolution goes to sh*t. Live just keeps going.
On the down side, the images are very old in town (and out). '96, by my guess, based on some construction visible in the pictures. In Google, the pictures are from the last year or two (also based on some visible construction), clearer, in color, but not as extensive.
I'll stick with the newer, color pictures in Google... More expansive pictures aren't as much help if they're 10 years old.
they are not really asynchronous (watch your web browser spinning icon!)
I really don't see what the throbber has to do with anything... It indicates that the browser is communicating with the server, you think the XMLHttpRequest object isn't?
Asynchronous refers to the ability to make the request, then continue processing (i.e. executing more javascript) while you're waiting for the request to be fulfilled. This is perfectly accomplishable with "iframe refresh hacks." So no, the "asynchronous" part does not force the use of XMLHttpRequest. There isn't a single thing you can do with AJAX that you can't do with an iframe. XMLHttpRequest just makes it a lot easier.
"oh, you can do all that in HTML with just a little bit of java and just a bit of javascript with just a bit of XML. Oh, and just a little use of iFrames too, then you've got it. Almost. See? It's every bit as easy!"
Just to be a bit picky, but you can do anything that AJAX can do with HTML, javascript, and iFrames (or regular frames). No Java or XML required.:-p
It might not be as easy, but it works. Plus it has the added bonus of being (a little) more cross browser friendly.
PHP is how ASP used to be... Life was good then (except the VBScript part (and the crap spaghetti-code)):-P
I won't touch VB.NET with a ten foot pole, but one of the nice things about ASP.NET is that I don't have to (unless I'm working on someone else's pre-existing project).
You don't have to use the debug button (I never do). Waiting for both compiles is a PITA, but you can save some time by opening any browser yourself and then just use the reload button.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better: in Microsoft's Virtual Earth, the photos of my area are literally TEN YEARS OLD!!! And you can't claim that because I live in a small town there's no updated photos available because Google's photos were taken in the last 6 months! I think Microsoft needs to find a new source.
That only solves part of the problem. The lesser part IMO. The bigger problem is what the intruder is doing with the internet connection they're stealing from you. If they're using it to share massive amounts of movies/music, then the lawsuit will come down on YOU. If they're downloading/distributing kiddy porn, Johnny Law will be knocking on YOUR door. Now, you can keep it from happening for very long, or at least keep an endless cycle with your intruder (change key, re-cracked, change key, re-cracked, etc.), but between key changes you're vulnerable.
Another problem is that they'd have access to your upstream router where they could pull some nasty shenanigans on you as well.
Disclaimer: I have this setup myself and I don't know how to really solve these problems except to try and monitor activity on the WEP AP and rotate keys occasionally.
Wired is inconvenient (particularly when renting) and there no reason wireless can't be reasonably secure.
WEP is completely insecure, but WPA is reasonably secure (for now). AFAIK, it's only succeptable to a brute force or dictionary attack on the key (at least with the pre-shared key version). If you've set a good passphrase, then there shouldn't be too much to worry about.
No, it's not 100% secure, probably not even 90%, but it's good enough right now. WEP is not.
Say what? Sniffing the traffic necessary to crack a 128 bit WEP key takes about an hour using an active attack (at least with my laptop). It's also a "set it and forget it" process... VERY easy in an apartment setting. And unless you're specifically watching for it, you'll never know it's happening.
It doesn't take an uber-hacker either. I certainly don't qualify as even a mediocre hacker, but I can be in your network in fairly short order.
I waffle back and forth as to whether I care if someone else accesses my wireless network. On the one hand, I have at least one client on my network which would be fairly easy to get into as it has more holes in its firewall than a cheese grater (I may have even totally turned it off, can't remember). On the other hand, the worst that would happen if that box did get pwned would I'd lose my TV recordings (myth box). The far worse problem is using my internet connection for illicit purposes such as movie/music sharing, kiddy porn, etc. Obviously, I'm not that worried about it as I still have a WEP protected AP, but it's still a concern for me that I'm not quite sure what to do about.
Sorry I can't help but butt in.
I just want to say wow. Just... Wow.
So when archeologists of the future read this post about how a monkey flew out of my butt in the city of Richland (46 17 N, 119 16 W), which all of my co-workers witnessed, and find that this city did exist at the location specified, they'll have no choice but to believe that a monkey flew out of my butt?
Could you point me to some evidence that a monkey, in fact, did not fly out of my butt? No? That's understandable since it was independently verified by 500 of my co-workers. You want to hear it from them? Oh, sorry, the monkey was very wrathful and killed all present, but believe me, they all saw it.
Can you see where I'm going here? When you say something miraculous happened, it's up to you to provide evidence that it happened, not the other way around. And no, a single source saying that it happened and also saying that lots of people saw does not count as witnesses.
I think we could go back and forth all day about how I read his point vs. how you read his point. This is the chain of events as I saw them:
...
:P). It just seemed like people were jumping on the conclusion they assumed the original poster was making without the original poster actually making it.
assertion: Christian founders must have believed what they were saying.
counter: Lots of people believe crazy things. It doesn't make them true.
While the counter is true, it does not invalidate the assertion. I did not see the claim that said assertion -> Christianity is true (I do occationally stop reading boring posts though, can't remember if that was the case here
As far as my opinion on Jesus vs. Jones, I think the difference is time. I've wondered about what people will believe in a couple thousand years. It would seem fairly easy for survivors of Jones' cult (if there was any) to write about the miracles he performed and how the big bad establishment put him down. He, however, overcame them and ascended to heaven with the Kool-aid man (Oh Yeah!).
Who knows? Perhaps Jonesianity will be the worlds largest religion in 2000 years. There won't be anyone around who could tell the events as they actually occurred, and if by chance some records survive from our time, they are obviously the work of the devil trying to tempt the faithful away from the path.
The more I think about religion, the more contrived it sounds. I think I'll stop thinking about it... I'd rather go to heaven that to just cease existing.
You missed the point. His point was not "they were willing to die therefore what they believed was true." It was: "Would Jones' followers have drank the poison if they knew him to be a fraud?" In other words, he was not saying that christianity was true, just that the founders must have truly believed in it.
Thats how I read it anyway.
does it flood?
No. One of the benefits of damming for hydro-power is that the dams can be used for flow control of the river. It would take a LOT of water to overload all of them. Add that to the fact that the area is very arid and the likely-hood of flooding is almost non-existant.
Of course, a breach of the John Day or Dalles dam could be disasterous for this facility, but if that happened, I think there'd be bigger problems than some wet computers.
Go analogy wars!
No, a better analogy, IMHO, is that you left your car unlocked and running in your driveway. Some crazy walks by, sees your car, hops in and drives it around the block.
Is THAT trespass?
Actually, I'd say it was more analogous to tracking down said pedophile and molesting him. The death penalty, at least in this country, is an "eye for an eye" type of punishment.
The line between "potential" threat and "actual" threat is blurry at best. When does that man approaching me with a knife transition from potential to actual threat? Is the fact that he has a knife threatening enough? Or do I wait until he makes some threatening gesture? What if his first threatening gesture is to plunge the knife into my gut? When should I react with deadly force to protect myself? A serial killer who has murdered several people could conceivably be thought of as a man who has just slashed at society with a knife. If a man slashed a knife at you, would you use deadly force against him to protect yourself? Or would you attempt to subdue him with non-lethal force because he only has the *potential* to take another swipe at you?
I'm not saying that it's right to execute people. My views are quite the opposite. It's just that when you make such huge generalizations, such as applying individual rights to "society," it opens the door to many interpretations. I agree with everything else you said in your prior post. It's just that, in my mind, that one statement didn't hold up and that has a tendancy to weaken the whole argument.
Upfront disclaimer: I do NOT support the death penalty because, as you pointed out, I do not believe that it provides any deterrent sufficiently greater than life in prison.
Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large.
The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense. If I have reasonable cause to believe that my life is being threaten, I may use lethal force in response. One could argue that if an individual has this right then society also has this right.
In the case of a serial killer, one could argue that executing this person is society "protecting" itself (including prison guards and other inmates if this person were merely incarcerated). This argument in not enough to persuade me as I think incarceration does sufficiently protect society from this person, but I believe that it is valid enough to negate the sentence above.
I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to the parent. I don't have any problem with your results, but his either contained a transcription error or he was just making it up. I'll reserve judgement at this point ;-)
ummm, yeah... I'd go over your example again.
You chown'ed testbed then rm'ed testdir. That's prefectly legal and test.txt and testdir will be removed. Unless of course you did 'chown -R' in which case all the files would non-writable, except that the group would not have been changed and all the directories would still be writable by the original group and therefore you.
2 + 2 = 5. I think you must have forgotten something.
I think what differentiates the two is the term "accident."
When someone is seriously injured with a knife by another person, it is generally not an accident. In that case, having a license for knives wouldn't solve anything; as I mentioned before, license != enforcement. For automobiles, tens of thousands of people are killed each year in car "accidents" (we're using accident in the meaning of intent: very few people mean to kill others with their car).
So I guess it comes down to typical daily use. How likely is it that as you're walking down the street, you trip and stab someone with your knife, verses driving down the street, you look down and crash into another car? I don't have the actual statistics for it, but I think the latter is a bit more common.
P.S. For guns, there really is a de facto license. Most states require a concealed weapons permit and also have laws about brandishing a weapon. The net result is that you can't walk around in public with a gun visible and you must have a license to carry it concealed.
I'll agree with you there. You shouldn't lose your license for not paying your child support... maybe a finger or two, but not your license ;-)
It doesn't change the fact that the point of a license is supposed to be a certification that you are "fit" to drive. I just can't see anything wrong with this idea.
I'm sorry the police in your area are so lax about enforcing vehicular laws, and I'm sorry that your DMV will issue a license to anyone and their dog, but you shouldn't blame those things on the requirement to have a license. That requirement is supposed to insure that everyone driving on public streets knows the rules, but it does nothing to force them to follow the rules. That's what the cops are for.
As they say: In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not. In other words, just because enforcement of the requirement is bad, doesn't mean the requirement itself is bad.
I vouch that, yes, historically, it was a right. One which you could lose, and one whose exercise required meeting common sense laws and regulations.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds remarkably similar to how it is now.
Must have vehicle in reasonable working condition... makes sense.
Must register vehicle... you said that was required before, so check.
Must be of appropriate age, fitness, etc... just as you said.
Must know and follow the rules of safe driving... seems pretty logical to me.
Must certify all of the above... NO WAY!!!! That's just crazy! You need to just take my word that I'm a great driver.
It's not clear? Perhaps you should check your prescription.
Let's see, which of these is more likely to get innocent people killed: a gun-fight, or a fist-fight? And lets see how well your gun does against Jack P. Terrorist's shoe-bomb.
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to add a little input. I think total unanimity is going too far. There WILL be some jackass who votes 'NO' on "No Murder." So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal. Do you propose that everyone always move away from this fellow, or is he one of the first legally sanctioned murders?
The OP forgot to include one thing:
5. Taken.
I noticed this too. In my area (very rural South-Eastern Washington), go just a few miles out of town and Google's resolution goes to sh*t. Live just keeps going.
On the down side, the images are very old in town (and out). '96, by my guess, based on some construction visible in the pictures. In Google, the pictures are from the last year or two (also based on some visible construction), clearer, in color, but not as extensive.
I'll stick with the newer, color pictures in Google... More expansive pictures aren't as much help if they're 10 years old.
they are not really asynchronous (watch your web browser spinning icon!)
I really don't see what the throbber has to do with anything... It indicates that the browser is communicating with the server, you think the XMLHttpRequest object isn't?
Asynchronous refers to the ability to make the request, then continue processing (i.e. executing more javascript) while you're waiting for the request to be fulfilled. This is perfectly accomplishable with "iframe refresh hacks." So no, the "asynchronous" part does not force the use of XMLHttpRequest. There isn't a single thing you can do with AJAX that you can't do with an iframe. XMLHttpRequest just makes it a lot easier.
"oh, you can do all that in HTML with just a little bit of java and just a bit of javascript with just a bit of XML. Oh, and just a little use of iFrames too, then you've got it. Almost. See? It's every bit as easy!"
:-p
Just to be a bit picky, but you can do anything that AJAX can do with HTML, javascript, and iFrames (or regular frames). No Java or XML required.
It might not be as easy, but it works. Plus it has the added bonus of being (a little) more cross browser friendly.
True enough. Luckily, I don't work on any applications that require sessions for login tracking, so I did overlook that part. :-)
:-p
I hate the compiling too. Oh well, I still get paid even if I'm just waiting for the compiler.
PHP is how ASP used to be... Life was good then (except the VBScript part (and the crap spaghetti-code)) :-P
I won't touch VB.NET with a ten foot pole, but one of the nice things about ASP.NET is that I don't have to (unless I'm working on someone else's pre-existing project).
You don't have to use the debug button (I never do). Waiting for both compiles is a PITA, but you can save some time by opening any browser yourself and then just use the reload button.