Exactly. Unless you are a very well financed operation that needs insane amounts of security oversight, just hire a sysadmin that you can trust. You'll spend less on an NSA-quality vetting process than you would on keeping multiple sysadmins on the clock 24/7.
And you'll have a lot less sysadmins that are annoyed that they have to jump through hoops every time they need to restart a daemon or edit a conf file. Personally, there's no way in hell I would take a sysadmin job where I had to ask permission every time I tried to do my job. Trust but verify (external logs that I can't access) is fine, no trust is not.
Actually, no. Making sure everything on my computer is sanitary is entirely too much work. Instead I simply behave myself. As far as anyone will be able to tell anyway.
Swap is easy, takes some more in depth work to get other things encrypted though. Google and familiarity with the tools are your friends for that.
Assuming you already have the cryptsetup package installed and your swap partition is partition 7 on sda, add the following to/etc/crypttab
cryptoswap/dev/sda7/dev/urandom cipher=aes-cbc-essiv:sha256,size=256,hash=sha256,swap
and change your swap entry in/etc/fstab to
/dev/mapper/cryptoswap none swap sw 0 0
Seriously, browser history/cookies/etc should always be symlinked onto a AES LUKS partition that's encrypted with a different key pulled from/dev/urandom at boot. Same as your swap partitions. And that's just for general, everyday usage. LiveCD+laptop+random MAC address+hotspot where you're able to use it without being seen+VPN that doesn't keep logs for anything you actually want kept anonymous.
Or they think that given the choice between watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that paints them as assholes for not agreeing with their agenda and watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that doesn't, they'll take the latter.
I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals.
Personally, I'm waiting for a news channel that caters to fascist libertarians* like me.
* Characterized by an absolute ruler who: A) Takes great pleasure in ordering public torture and execution of any group (governmental, commercial, or grass roots) or individual violating the individual liberty of any citizen. B) Enjoys finding creative ways of humiliating parliamentary members who try to pass bad, unnecessary, repressive, or otherwise retarded laws. C) Is otherwise content to get paid huge sums of money to sit around and do fuck all.
I beg to differ. Ethyl alcohol is the highest physical form any grain can ever possibly achieve.
Before the ethanol regs went in place you had to pay a pretty big license fee every year in my state to legally produce 95% pure ethyl alcohol. Now you get a tax break. Sure, you can't use it in anything with plastic or rubber in the fuel delivery system because it will melt them but you can now stop distilling at say 40-60% for a little oral QA testing. I'm still unsatisfied with the purity and haven't moved on from that stage yet.
Oh my god! You mean millions of people don't agree on every detail? Fuck, you can't even get more than three people to agree on pizza toppings without some arm twisting.
Thanks for the dis of populism though. I always love it when those espousing more government involvement for the good of the people rip on the people themselves. It shows them for the elitist asshats that they are and makes me laugh.
When my portion of the movement, meaning me, says they want smaller government, that's exactly what I mean. Strip it down to nothing beyond providing for our safety, securing our liberties from states and other entities, and providing a fair (same rules for everyone) playing field for interstate and international commerce. Nothing else. For any reason.
The last ballot I cast looked something like R, D, D, D, R, R, I, I, and a Wile E. Coyote write-in for governor because I didn't care for either candidate. Which brings to mind the quote "When you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is best used for chewing."
No, they pretty much only have only done worth a damn at A. That they've more or less done pretty well at given that we've yet to be successfully invaded by any credible threat. Yes, we've been hit a time or two but we've never even gotten close to losing a home game.
That they do all three better than most other governments is some solace but I'd still prefer they de-head their collective asses and do better.
It's not shortsightedness, it's math. There are more issues I could legitimately be pissed off about than there is time for me to be pissed off about them. That's if I'm willing to be pissed off every waking minute, which I'm not.
Everyone cherry-picks their causes. Trying to persuade me is fine. Derision needs only be met with a held up mirror though since every living person does exactly the same thing.
Eh, more like I have a finite amount of righteous indignation to go around. I'm a selfish enough bastard that I'm not prepared to spend every waking moment being pissed off about something. Much like every other person on the planet. So, on some issues, you can have my agreement but not my passion or my effort.
My voter ID card says Republican at the moment* and I was never for mandated health insurance. I'm for very few things with mandated in the name that apply to individuals.
* It would say Independent but I like to be able to vote in the primaries in my state.
Why? Because of the definition of taxes, government, and private entities.
And no, I don't concede that the government forming a monopoly on health care would be legal. It simply isn't one of the powers granted it by the Constitution and is therefore reserved for the states or the individual.
They're listening now because we've made a huge stink, mostly. Bear in mind we're no more a homogeneous group than any other group of millions. Opinions on details vary from individual to individual exactly as they do through the rest of the population. We simply have a very few broad points that we agree on.
I find it really helpful in discussions like this to point out that any more than three people will be hard pressed to even agree on pizza toppings.
Personally, I think the government has no business dealing with drugs unless they cross state or national lines and I think the commerce clause has been overstretched to include drug crimes that don't and never would have. But it's not a major issue to me, so I don't plan on putting much effort into it. Hand me a properly worded petition (not a legalize pot petition) to that effect and I'll sign it, maybe even throw you a few bucks, but it's not something I care to campaign on.
Activist = creating new law from the bench. This would in fact be the exact opposite. Yes, you may use this statement against me if I ever argue in favor of a judge legislating from the bench for an issue I agree with.
B) Deal with Interstate trade and legal matters. Actual existing ones, mind you, not the creation of new ones.
C) Ensure that constitutional rights of citizens are not infringed by the states or other entities.
That's pretty much all they should be doing or should even be allowed to do. The federal government isn't there to help the people. The federal government is there to make sure we're free to succeed or fail and live or die as our ability and luck give us the means.
Wow, do you think if you started over and tried again you could possibly be any more wrong? That statement was roughly as correct as saying Only in the US are people not western European.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why you will never be a very good conspiracy theorist.
It might as well be a patent on the words. Unless you plan on releasing "app store" brand ale?
Problem is the authors still like the big advances publishers give them.
They're pretty useful if you don't mind pirating the works or buying them in whatever format and stripping the DRM.
Exactly. Unless you are a very well financed operation that needs insane amounts of security oversight, just hire a sysadmin that you can trust. You'll spend less on an NSA-quality vetting process than you would on keeping multiple sysadmins on the clock 24/7.
And you'll have a lot less sysadmins that are annoyed that they have to jump through hoops every time they need to restart a daemon or edit a conf file. Personally, there's no way in hell I would take a sysadmin job where I had to ask permission every time I tried to do my job. Trust but verify (external logs that I can't access) is fine, no trust is not.
Wow, that's the best reply fail I've seen in a while. That or you're just a colossal moron.
Try here and here.
Actually, no. Making sure everything on my computer is sanitary is entirely too much work. Instead I simply behave myself. As far as anyone will be able to tell anyway.
Swap is easy, takes some more in depth work to get other things encrypted though. Google and familiarity with the tools are your friends for that.
Assuming you already have the cryptsetup package installed and your swap partition is partition 7 on sda, add the following to /etc/crypttab
/dev/sda7 /dev/urandom cipher=aes-cbc-essiv:sha256,size=256,hash=sha256,swap
/etc/fstab to
cryptoswap
and change your swap entry in
/dev/mapper/cryptoswap none swap sw 0 0
Next time you reboot it's encrypted.
Seriously, browser history/cookies/etc should always be symlinked onto a AES LUKS partition that's encrypted with a different key pulled from /dev/urandom at boot. Same as your swap partitions. And that's just for general, everyday usage. LiveCD+laptop+random MAC address+hotspot where you're able to use it without being seen+VPN that doesn't keep logs for anything you actually want kept anonymous.
Not yet anyway...
As a radical gun toting redneck in a flyover state, I am offended by your assertion that I am a minority.
Wood chipper, nuff said.
Or they think that given the choice between watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that paints them as assholes for not agreeing with their agenda and watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that doesn't, they'll take the latter.
I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals.
Personally, I'm waiting for a news channel that caters to fascist libertarians* like me.
* Characterized by an absolute ruler who: A) Takes great pleasure in ordering public torture and execution of any group (governmental, commercial, or grass roots) or individual violating the individual liberty of any citizen. B) Enjoys finding creative ways of humiliating parliamentary members who try to pass bad, unnecessary, repressive, or otherwise retarded laws. C) Is otherwise content to get paid huge sums of money to sit around and do fuck all.
I beg to differ. Ethyl alcohol is the highest physical form any grain can ever possibly achieve.
Before the ethanol regs went in place you had to pay a pretty big license fee every year in my state to legally produce 95% pure ethyl alcohol. Now you get a tax break. Sure, you can't use it in anything with plastic or rubber in the fuel delivery system because it will melt them but you can now stop distilling at say 40-60% for a little oral QA testing. I'm still unsatisfied with the purity and haven't moved on from that stage yet.
Oh my god! You mean millions of people don't agree on every detail? Fuck, you can't even get more than three people to agree on pizza toppings without some arm twisting.
Thanks for the dis of populism though. I always love it when those espousing more government involvement for the good of the people rip on the people themselves. It shows them for the elitist asshats that they are and makes me laugh.
When my portion of the movement, meaning me, says they want smaller government, that's exactly what I mean. Strip it down to nothing beyond providing for our safety, securing our liberties from states and other entities, and providing a fair (same rules for everyone) playing field for interstate and international commerce. Nothing else. For any reason.
The last ballot I cast looked something like R, D, D, D, R, R, I, I, and a Wile E. Coyote write-in for governor because I didn't care for either candidate. Which brings to mind the quote "When you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is best used for chewing."
No, they pretty much only have only done worth a damn at A. That they've more or less done pretty well at given that we've yet to be successfully invaded by any credible threat. Yes, we've been hit a time or two but we've never even gotten close to losing a home game.
That they do all three better than most other governments is some solace but I'd still prefer they de-head their collective asses and do better.
It's not shortsightedness, it's math. There are more issues I could legitimately be pissed off about than there is time for me to be pissed off about them. That's if I'm willing to be pissed off every waking minute, which I'm not.
Everyone cherry-picks their causes. Trying to persuade me is fine. Derision needs only be met with a held up mirror though since every living person does exactly the same thing.
I'm arguing both, because both are true.
Eh, more like I have a finite amount of righteous indignation to go around. I'm a selfish enough bastard that I'm not prepared to spend every waking moment being pissed off about something. Much like every other person on the planet. So, on some issues, you can have my agreement but not my passion or my effort.
My voter ID card says Republican at the moment* and I was never for mandated health insurance. I'm for very few things with mandated in the name that apply to individuals.
* It would say Independent but I like to be able to vote in the primaries in my state.
Why? Because of the definition of taxes, government, and private entities.
And no, I don't concede that the government forming a monopoly on health care would be legal. It simply isn't one of the powers granted it by the Constitution and is therefore reserved for the states or the individual.
They're listening now because we've made a huge stink, mostly. Bear in mind we're no more a homogeneous group than any other group of millions. Opinions on details vary from individual to individual exactly as they do through the rest of the population. We simply have a very few broad points that we agree on.
I find it really helpful in discussions like this to point out that any more than three people will be hard pressed to even agree on pizza toppings.
Personally, I think the government has no business dealing with drugs unless they cross state or national lines and I think the commerce clause has been overstretched to include drug crimes that don't and never would have. But it's not a major issue to me, so I don't plan on putting much effort into it. Hand me a properly worded petition (not a legalize pot petition) to that effect and I'll sign it, maybe even throw you a few bucks, but it's not something I care to campaign on.
Activist = creating new law from the bench. This would in fact be the exact opposite. Yes, you may use this statement against me if I ever argue in favor of a judge legislating from the bench for an issue I agree with.
Auto insurance is a state law. Thank you, come again.
Well, you asked...
A) Maintain the security of our nation.
B) Deal with Interstate trade and legal matters. Actual existing ones, mind you, not the creation of new ones.
C) Ensure that constitutional rights of citizens are not infringed by the states or other entities.
That's pretty much all they should be doing or should even be allowed to do. The federal government isn't there to help the people. The federal government is there to make sure we're free to succeed or fail and live or die as our ability and luck give us the means.
Me, for starters. I'd fully expected to go to prison for refusing to either purchase insurance or pay the fine.
Wow, do you think if you started over and tried again you could possibly be any more wrong? That statement was roughly as correct as saying Only in the US are people not western European.