...and I mean this with the utmost respect, mind you. "Illegal offshore gambling?" What the FUCK are you talking about?
I wasn't aware that gambling sites that operate outside of the United States fell under the US' legal jurisdiction. Is there any kind of law, convention, or agreement (maybe from the UN?) that supports this?
Because otherwise, I see this as an argument FOR legalizing gambling- if there are sites outside of US jurisdiction where it is available, then criminalizing it just cuts off potential tax revenue when the gamblers take their business elsewhere.
Check the citations in just about any 'free' work- You are bound to find that some of the cited works are copyrighted or otherwise protected material. In these cases, you have the choice of purchasing said material yourself, or trying to find a library or other party who has a copy. So whats the big deal?
Regardless of whether the work in question was paid for by taxpayer's money, the actual ground work for the research still deserves some recompense. How many industries in the US are partially or fully subsidized by taxpayers dollars? If you've got gripes about this article, I suggest you direct your ire towards a more deserving target- attacking this sort of thing only worsens the already piss poor state of research these days.
I can use my comp without touching it- No touching it! No touching it! I can use my comp without touching it- No touching it! No touching it! Look at me, look at me, hands in the air like its good to be alive And I'm a dumb script kiddie, exploiting flaws in your security! I can use you as another spambot, I can make you my new zombie! All of this with a flick of my wrist in the airspace over my PC!
Yes, it pays salaries, but when it comes down to it, what are the people earning those salaries producing? Nothing of value, just moving funds from one party to another. I understand that those people need to eat and that the fact that we have the service means we need to have people running it, but regardless of all that, these employees are not putting any value back into the economy for their efforts.
Examples follow.
Note: All figures are arbitrary! I am not using exact figures or percentages here. If you know the exact figures for the social security budget and the amount you pay to social security, feel free to substitute those values for mine.
Let
's say that in a given pay period, I earn $1000. It then stands to follow that I have produced at least $1000 worth of goods / services. I would not be worth keeping on as an employee if the cost of employing me was larger than the revenue I generated.
Current figures: Myself: $1000 Social Security: $0 Recipient: $0.
First arbitrary figure: Let's assume 10% of my pay goes to the social security administration. Now, it looks like this: Myself: $900 Social Security: $100 Recpient: $0.
Now, the employees of the Social Security administration need to eat as well, so of course a portion of those funds will go to them. I'm going to go with 10% again, as a purely arbitrary figure. So the final totals look like: Myself: $900 Social Security: $90 Recipient: $10.
Now, we're already assuming I've contributed at least $1000 worth of labour, as I would not be worth keeping as an employee if I did not. Were all that money to remain available for my use, The full $1000 would be going back into the economy. Instead, I'm only putting $900 back into the economy, whereas payroll for social security employees puts back 90, and the social security recipient puts back 10. That totals $1000, so no additional money is being put back into the economy by either the social security employees or recipient. The social security administration produces no goods, and the only services it provides are free- all of their revenue comes from mandatory withholdings from my paycheck. Similarly, the social security recipient produces no goods or services- all of his or her revenue comes from the social security administration.
So up until this point, yeah, I'm losing money, but the overall economy isn't really being negatively impacted. But wait! Theres a little more to it than that.
Assuming I, the social security officer, and the social security recipient all spend money only on products and services that operate 100% out of the US, a grand total of $1000 goes back into the economy. This is the same 'stimulus' to the economy that would occur if The entire $1000 was in my hands. This model assumes no overhead other
than payroll for the social security office, which is an impossibly conservative estimate as well.
However, that social security recipient is not likely to spend the money that way. With limited fixed income, a social security recipient is far more likely to purchase inexpensive imported 'sweat shop' goods than goods assembled in america. While most of us spend money on imported products, the frugality imposed by limited income serves to increase
the ratio of imported to domestic purchased goods. Not just that- Social Security recipients have a tendency to live in areas where other low income individuals live. These areas have notably higher crime rates. All other things being equal, an individual living in these areas is more likely to spend part of his or her income on drugs, unregistered weapons, prostitution, etc etc, just because of accessibility.
Example: Living in a "nice" neighborhood, you may be of the inclination to try, say, marijuana. Ok, great. Now you have to figure out who has it. 'White collar' pot smokers tend to go through a friend of a friend of a friend to get their fix- I know several of these. On the other hand, if you were living in a
The value being destroyed is the cost overhead involved in the system. Do you honestly believe that 100% of the amount deducted from your paycheck, ostensibly for social security, is doled out to those collecting social security at a 1:1 ratio? No, there are other fees and costs associated with these systems as well.
The bigger logical problem with his statement is that it is subjective. If my wife and I are having a kid, but we are some of the last members alive of some racial group (say an American indian tribe), then our kid might be more important).
In this example, I would say just the opposite- When it comes to preserving the genome, a fertile adult female is more valuable than an unborn child that may well die or be otherwise rendered sterile prior to sexual maturity, embrace homosexuality, or any number of things that preclude the line passing further. In MOST cases, if a female can get pregnant once, it can happen again. Even if complications from the pregnancy render the female unable to bear children 'naturally,' there is still a good chance that eggs could be harvested, etc.
Exception: if bone marrow can also be transplanted, this effectively replaces the recipient's immune system with the donor's, so there is no rejection.
But wouldn't this cause the oppposite problem? In this case, isn't there the possibility of the 'new' immune system attacking the rest of the recipients body, rather than the recipients immune system attacking the donated tissue? Or am I missing something?
I can't speak for the world as a whole, but I strongly believe that the juggernaut that the US Federal government has become has passed the threshold wherein the citizenry can affect meaningful change through the 'established channels.'
In and of itself, no. The tendency of some geeks to neglect personal hygiene, in most cases I've seen, is a motivational issue more than anything else.
While not all or even most geeks go so far as to neglect personal hygiene, I believe that most geeks make at least marginal sacrifices as far as having a social life goes. In some extreme cases, the whole concept of a social life is out the proverbial window.
Why do we practice personal hygiene to begin with? I would say that there are three reasons we practice personal hygiene- Social Acceptance, Professionalism at work, and Personal Well-being.
With the more extreme cases, the social acceptance criterion is out the window. The Professionalism criterion is applicable only insofar as the job requires; few people dress in a suit every day if they can get away with jeans and a t-shirt. If the geek works from home, or only works directly with other geeks, this criterion is out the window as well.
So that only leaves the personal well-being criterion, which is largely subjective. Some people hate feeling dirty or greasy, some could care less. Some people are sensitive to their own body odor, some are not. If Social acceptance and professionalism are non issues, and being dirty doesn't bother you, what reason do you have to shower or change regularly?
1) Rename the iexplore.exe executable, give it a filename like ie7fld.dll. 2) Assign NTFS permissions to the Internet Explorer directory, allowing only domain administrators to modify it. 3) (optional for quick access) Write a batch file to change that ie7fld.dll back to iexplore.exe 3)Place a shortcut to firefox in the system32 folder. Rename it iexplore.
Now the user simply can't run internet explorer, even by launching it from the command line. And should the user need to access a site that requires internet explorer for whatever reason, it's an extremely quick task for you to TS in and change it back. In fact, you could do it even easier than this a number of ways, but meh.
Depending on the field, there are a number of applications that tie into an exchange environment beyond just the email client. I'm talking things like (VOIP based) voicemail to email, Blackberry Enterprise Server, and their ilk.
For the record, I hate blackberries, and would actually recommend a windows mobile device over a blackberry any day. In how many corporate environments, however, does the IT department get to call the shots in that manner? No, in reality, if the CEO and the other board members want blackberries, they're going to get them, and a BES to support them.
So is there any chance for supporting other apps that work with exchange, or is this just jury rigged to the point that outlook recognizes it as Exchange?
"Mr. President, you cannot carry that blackberry for security reasons." "O RLY?!?" "Mr. President, I'm afraid I must insist." "Is that so?" "Yes." "You're fired." "...You ca-" "FIRED." "Bu-" "FIRED."
Are there any production servers remaining anywhere that still recognize the deltree command?
If so, someone has failed big time... Need to support Legacy Applications maybe? If so, your company is one of those standing in the way of breaking out of MSFT for good...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just start my OWN internet! With blackjack, and hook...never mind.
fixt
fixt
Don't be so hasty. I'd personally switch teams for a day just for a chance to try it in zero G. Go ahead and troll me, haters!
Hey now, if I'm not married and the porn star isn't either, that shit ain't adultery!
...and I mean this with the utmost respect, mind you. "Illegal offshore gambling?" What the FUCK are you talking about?
I wasn't aware that gambling sites that operate outside of the United States fell under the US' legal jurisdiction. Is there any kind of law, convention, or agreement (maybe from the UN?) that supports this?
Because otherwise, I see this as an argument FOR legalizing gambling- if there are sites outside of US jurisdiction where it is available, then criminalizing it just cuts off potential tax revenue when the gamblers take their business elsewhere.
Check the citations in just about any 'free' work- You are bound to find that some of the cited works are copyrighted or otherwise protected material. In these cases, you have the choice of purchasing said material yourself, or trying to find a library or other party who has a copy. So whats the big deal?
Regardless of whether the work in question was paid for by taxpayer's money, the actual ground work for the research still deserves some recompense. How many industries in the US are partially or fully subsidized by taxpayers dollars? If you've got gripes about this article, I suggest you direct your ire towards a more deserving target- attacking this sort of thing only worsens the already piss poor state of research these days.
I can use my comp without touching it-
No touching it!
No touching it!
I can use my comp without touching it-
No touching it!
No touching it!
Look at me, look at me, hands in the air like its good to be alive
And I'm a dumb script kiddie, exploiting flaws in your security!
I can use you as another spambot,
I can make you my new zombie!
All of this with a flick of my wrist in the airspace over my PC!
Yes, it pays salaries, but when it comes down to it, what are the people earning those salaries producing? Nothing of value, just moving funds from one party to another. I understand that those people need to eat and that the fact that we have the service means we need to have people running it, but regardless of all that, these employees are not putting any value back into the economy for their efforts.
Examples follow.
Note: All figures are arbitrary! I am not using exact figures or percentages here. If you know the exact figures for the social security budget and the amount you pay to social security, feel free to substitute those values for mine.
Let 's say that in a given pay period, I earn $1000. It then stands to follow that I have produced at least $1000 worth of goods / services. I would not be worth keeping on as an employee if the cost of employing me was larger than the revenue I generated.
Current figures:
Myself: $1000
Social Security: $0
Recipient: $0.
First arbitrary figure: Let's assume 10% of my pay goes to the social security administration. Now, it looks like this:
Myself: $900
Social Security: $100
Recpient: $0.
Now, the employees of the Social Security administration need to eat as well, so of course a portion of those funds will go to them. I'm going to go with 10% again, as a purely arbitrary figure. So the final totals look like:
Myself: $900
Social Security: $90
Recipient: $10.
Now, we're already assuming I've contributed at least $1000 worth of labour, as I would not be worth keeping as an employee if I did not. Were all that money to remain available for my use, The full $1000 would be going back into the economy. Instead, I'm only putting $900 back into the economy, whereas payroll for social security employees puts back 90, and the social security recipient puts back 10. That totals $1000, so no additional money is being put back into the economy by either the social security employees or recipient. The social security administration produces no goods, and the only services it provides are free- all of their revenue comes from mandatory withholdings from my paycheck. Similarly, the social security recipient produces no goods or services- all of his or her revenue comes from the social security administration.
So up until this point, yeah, I'm losing money, but the overall economy isn't really being negatively impacted. But wait! Theres a little more to it than that.
Assuming I, the social security officer, and the social security recipient all spend money only on products and services that operate 100% out of the US, a grand total of $1000 goes back into the economy. This is the same 'stimulus' to the economy that would occur if The entire $1000 was in my hands. This model assumes no overhead other than payroll for the social security office, which is an impossibly conservative estimate as well.
However, that social security recipient is not likely to spend the money that way. With limited fixed income, a social security recipient is far more likely to purchase inexpensive imported 'sweat shop' goods than goods assembled in america. While most of us spend money on imported products, the frugality imposed by limited income serves to increase the ratio of imported to domestic purchased goods. Not just that- Social Security recipients have a tendency to live in areas where other low income individuals live. These areas have notably higher crime rates. All other things being equal, an individual living in these areas is more likely to spend part of his or her income on drugs, unregistered weapons, prostitution, etc etc, just because of accessibility.
Example: Living in a "nice" neighborhood, you may be of the inclination to try, say, marijuana. Ok, great. Now you have to figure out who has it. 'White collar' pot smokers tend to go through a friend of a friend of a friend to get their fix- I know several of these. On the other hand, if you were living in a
The value being destroyed is the cost overhead involved in the system. Do you honestly believe that 100% of the amount deducted from your paycheck, ostensibly for social security, is doled out to those collecting social security at a 1:1 ratio? No, there are other fees and costs associated with these systems as well.
I'm level 6 you insensitive clod!
shove them where the sun don't shine (on your body)
Could you be more specific? This is slashdot, remember.
The bigger logical problem with his statement is that it is subjective. If my wife and I are having a kid, but we are some of the last members alive of some racial group (say an American indian tribe), then our kid might be more important).
In this example, I would say just the opposite- When it comes to preserving the genome, a fertile adult female is more valuable than an unborn child that may well die or be otherwise rendered sterile prior to sexual maturity, embrace homosexuality, or any number of things that preclude the line passing further. In MOST cases, if a female can get pregnant once, it can happen again. Even if complications from the pregnancy render the female unable to bear children 'naturally,' there is still a good chance that eggs could be harvested, etc.
I don't believe the repair install option was available in the Vista beta, if memory serves correctly. Can't speak for the XP beta.
That's pretty fascinating and I wish I could mod you informative. I want to read more about this.
Exception: if bone marrow can also be transplanted, this effectively replaces the recipient's immune system with the donor's, so there is no rejection.
But wouldn't this cause the oppposite problem? In this case, isn't there the possibility of the 'new' immune system attacking the rest of the recipients body, rather than the recipients immune system attacking the donated tissue? Or am I missing something?
In Soviet Russia, a beowulf cluster of these imagines YOU!!
I can't speak for the world as a whole, but I strongly believe that the juggernaut that the US Federal government has become has passed the threshold wherein the citizenry can affect meaningful change through the 'established channels.'
In and of itself, no. The tendency of some geeks to neglect personal hygiene, in most cases I've seen, is a motivational issue more than anything else.
While not all or even most geeks go so far as to neglect personal hygiene, I believe that most geeks make at least marginal sacrifices as far as having a social life goes. In some extreme cases, the whole concept of a social life is out the proverbial window.
Why do we practice personal hygiene to begin with? I would say that there are three reasons we practice personal hygiene- Social Acceptance, Professionalism at work, and Personal Well-being.
With the more extreme cases, the social acceptance criterion is out the window. The Professionalism criterion is applicable only insofar as the job requires; few people dress in a suit every day if they can get away with jeans and a t-shirt. If the geek works from home, or only works directly with other geeks, this criterion is out the window as well.
So that only leaves the personal well-being criterion, which is largely subjective. Some people hate feeling dirty or greasy, some could care less. Some people are sensitive to their own body odor, some are not. If Social acceptance and professionalism are non issues, and being dirty doesn't bother you, what reason do you have to shower or change regularly?
Try this then.
1) Rename the iexplore.exe executable, give it a filename like ie7fld.dll.
2) Assign NTFS permissions to the Internet Explorer directory, allowing only domain administrators to modify it.
3) (optional for quick access) Write a batch file to change that ie7fld.dll back to iexplore.exe
3)Place a shortcut to firefox in the system32 folder. Rename it iexplore.
Now the user simply can't run internet explorer, even by launching it from the command line. And should the user need to access a site that requires internet explorer for whatever reason, it's an extremely quick task for you to TS in and change it back. In fact, you could do it even easier than this a number of ways, but meh.
Depending on the field, there are a number of applications that tie into an exchange environment beyond just the email client. I'm talking things like (VOIP based) voicemail to email, Blackberry Enterprise Server, and their ilk.
For the record, I hate blackberries, and would actually recommend a windows mobile device over a blackberry any day. In how many corporate environments, however, does the IT department get to call the shots in that manner? No, in reality, if the CEO and the other board members want blackberries, they're going to get them, and a BES to support them.
So is there any chance for supporting other apps that work with exchange, or is this just jury rigged to the point that outlook recognizes it as Exchange?
Somehow, they got the exclamation mark upside down.
calling me Muslim is the biggest insult I have received all my life.
Count yourself lucky?
"Mr. President, you cannot carry that blackberry for security reasons."
"O RLY?!?"
"Mr. President, I'm afraid I must insist."
"Is that so?"
"Yes."
"You're fired."
"...You ca-"
"FIRED."
"Bu-"
"FIRED."
Hey! You backed up Rule 1 three times! Your post is secure!
Are there any production servers remaining anywhere that still recognize the deltree command?
If so, someone has failed big time... Need to support Legacy Applications maybe? If so, your company is one of those standing in the way of breaking out of MSFT for good...