Oh, it's quite possible. Just encrypt the entire disk with truecrypt, and then throw away the key. I guarantee nobody will be able to break into that system for at least a decade or two. You can do it with Linux, too - use LUKS instead of truecrypt.
Other than, that, it depends on what your definition of "secure" is. Once again, this e-mail has absolutely dick all to do with OS security. If you allow users to have documents, and you allow users to run files, and you allow users to send and receive e-mails, then you're creating an environment where a user can run a program which copies all of his documents and e-mails them to someone else. Period, full stop. If you don't want that to happen, you can either educate your users, or remove one of the requirements. Maybe you can go back to using inter-office mail envelopes instead of e-mail.
No, those were never brilliant jerks, they were just jerks who learned a skill. If you can't transition from C to C# even when it's a job requirement, you're probably a total knob. The brilliant guys are the ones who taught themselves C# years ago with a pirated beta release of the compiler, just for fun.
Good point. Some of the best teams I've ever had were made up of very... "eccentric" individuals. As long as the person in charge can figure out how to keep them happy and working in tandem, you'll get great results. The problems usually occur when outsiders start butting in, or when part of the job is dealing with more "normal" people.
How many people actually run Windows as non-admin users?
In an enterprise environment? The majority. On government systems? EVERYONE.
This e-card had nothing to do with admin rights, so claiming that "the root problem is that Windows is designed to be used in a non-locked down mode" is silly, at best.
Or, to put it in simpler words: "Apologists like you are why we have lousy computer security as a nation."
You can install many programs in windows without needing root privilidges. Or, alternately, you can download a portable version of the program and put it anywhere you want. Or, if no portable version exists, get Universal Installer and extract the files to whatever location you want. Very few programs actually NEED root privilidges to run on windows, it's just that most people aren't aware of the alternative, and most software vendors couldn't be bothered to offer an easy non-root-install option.
No, not at all. This just shows that there are idiots everywhere. Anyone who's ever worked in IT has had to deal with a coworker or boss who is so incompetent that they'd probably screw up a fry-chef job at McDonalds. I'm not exactly shocked that a few of them clicked a spoofed e-mail.
Yeah, I hate to stereotype - I know there are some completely normal homeschoolers out there - but when such a significant number of them are crazy people looking to completely control their kids, sometimes it's just better to lump you all in together:)
I have no problem with homeschooling in principle - I have a problem with it because it's abused so often, and because there's really no way to prevent it being abused. We can only control it through standardized testing, but it's quite easy for parents to say "Those EEEVILUTIONSTS want me to teach you the devils words, so I'll show you this stuff so you can spit it out on a test", and there's no way to stop that kind of brainwashing. So I have to oppose the whole system, even though I like the idea of having it as an option.
And I agree on public school. We can do a lot better. Unfortunately, there appear to be no politicians with the balls to make the required reforms and let the chips fall where they may.
My browsing history is quite similar - it's not an issue unless you actually get accused of some serious crime that's related to some of those searches. Even then, you're right, it's circumstantial at best, although if you had the bad luck to "double delete" your history within a couple days of when the crime took place, it sure would make you look awful guilty. Sure there'd be a chance that you're that one-in-a-trillion guy who searches for unusual topics, AND regularly deletes his browser history, AND somehow got falsely accused of committing a crime using things he researches before anyone knew about his browsing habits.... but, honestly, if I were on that jury, I'd find that mix of circumstances awful compelling. Not enough to convict on, but definitely getting close.
Yeah, and everyone I know in the ghetto has at least a PhD. Plus they all run their own businesses, quite successfully. There are no poor people anywhere - it's a myth.
A bit off-topic, but what's homeschooling got to do with anything? It was the **public** school board in Kansas that decided creationism was as scientifically valid as... science, not the Kansas coalition of homeschoolers
Yeah, the homeschoolers are the ones who think that the Kansas public school board hasn't gone far enough.
Frankly, with the shape the public school system is in these days it's hard for me to imagine any alternative doing worse.
Think if a majority of the people in this country were convinced by "2012" that the world would really end at that year. Their priorities for government spending would be dramatically different.
Yeah, they might start throwing trillions of dollars at all sorts of useless stuff!
That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that.... So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
That is, in a word, "retarded". You can use that reasoning to excuse just about anything. Certainty isn't required in order to have confidence in a conclusion, nor is the lack of certainty a reason to accept any random nonsense.
Creationists do this all the time with their "teach the controversy" bullshit, when they say things like "you can't be sure how all of evolution happened, therefor my magic-man with his talking snake is just as valid". It's asinine when they do it, and it's just as asinine here.
What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
Leo Szilard would have found some other famous scientist to sign his name to the letter.
What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
What would have happened if pink unicorns farted fallout?
You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
I'm not sure what part of "my car will be ready for replacement" you didn't get, but apparently there are at least a few people with mod points who have equally poor comprehension skills. Also, I'm not sure what part of "I'm not American" you don't get. It's rather sad that even though you only wrote two complete sentences, you managed to get them both completely wrong.
The trend here is the exact opposite, and our fuel costs more. I dunno what the average income is in Chicago, but if a 30% increase in fuel prices led to a 70% decline in suburb property values, you guys must be really hurtin'.
For my part, I make about 50% more money these days than I did back when the prices hit record highs. Back then I did cut down my driving a little bit (as in "no more hour-long joyrides every other day - I'll go once a week"), but didn't even think about moving. Nowadays it wouldn't even be an issue. And no, I'm not rich by any means, although my income is higher than the average.
Also, Americans need far more oil per capita vs third world citizens
Well DUH. You just said that they have way fewer drivers - OF COURSE they'd have lower per-capita consumption!
If you mean that the average Chinese driver uses less fuel than the average American driver, you're right, but how much less? The average Chinese person makes about $3,000 per year. Compare that to about $25,000 in the US, or $32,000 here in Canada. Even if they use only 1/10th the fuel that we do, they'd be just as hard hit by an increase in prices. Actually, they'd be harder hit, because they have much less disposable income; compared to us, a FAR higher percentage of their income goes towards food, water, and shelter.
The situation is even worse in India, where the average income is about $1,000 per year.
None of which has much to do with your assertion that "suburbs are unsustainable". There's no doubt that oil consumption and oil prices are going to go up over the next decade or two, but to turn that into a "the-sky-is-falling" scenario is just ridiculous.
In that case I'd say you need to consult a psychiatrist. What you just said makes as much sense to me as:
"Eat a peanut-butter sandwich? I would feel like a cannibal. Might as well devour a fetus."
If opening the trunk of your car makes you feel like a slave, there is something very wrong with your neural wiring. And I honestly don't mean that as an insult - I just don't know any more polite way of saying it.
Which will work fine until oil is at $120-150/barrel, and you're spending a non-negligible amount on fuel for commuting and can't afford your mortgage and food.
Nonsense. Oil already hit $120 a few years back, and I don't know anyone who had to chose between commuting and traveling. Even if it hits $200 per barrel 5 years from now, my car will be ready for replacement, and I can buy another one which uses half as much fuel.
There are billions of people between India and China who are going to be driving soon. And who will be using oil to do so. Don't kid yourself, the suburbs are unsustainable.
Yes, billions of people in India and China will be able to afford $150/barrel fuel, but people in first world nations won't. Nice logic there.
I can tell you that beating yourself over the head with a hammer is the wrong way to cure a headache, without needing to provide an alternative remedy. If you choose to keep hammering your skull because you think I'm "a critic, not a solver", that's you're prerogative - a more rational approach would be to consider my advice, and try something else.
Nonsense - if Russia hadn't gotten involved, the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the first nuke would have detonated over Berlin. Either way, the allies would have come out on top. Russia contributed a great deal - and sacrificed and suffered more than any other nation - but the idea that the war could not have been won without them is pure fiction.
Not sure about the Dominican republic, but Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada weren't "unilateral". Not disagreeing with your point, but if you're going to count non-unilateral engagements, then the list grows far, FAR larger. People seem to forget that the vast majority of US military conflicts have been at the behest or with the cooperation of the UN and/or other nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it's quite possible. Just encrypt the entire disk with truecrypt, and then throw away the key. I guarantee nobody will be able to break into that system for at least a decade or two. You can do it with Linux, too - use LUKS instead of truecrypt.
Other than, that, it depends on what your definition of "secure" is. Once again, this e-mail has absolutely dick all to do with OS security. If you allow users to have documents, and you allow users to run files, and you allow users to send and receive e-mails, then you're creating an environment where a user can run a program which copies all of his documents and e-mails them to someone else. Period, full stop. If you don't want that to happen, you can either educate your users, or remove one of the requirements. Maybe you can go back to using inter-office mail envelopes instead of e-mail.
No, those were never brilliant jerks, they were just jerks who learned a skill. If you can't transition from C to C# even when it's a job requirement, you're probably a total knob. The brilliant guys are the ones who taught themselves C# years ago with a pirated beta release of the compiler, just for fun.
Good point. Some of the best teams I've ever had were made up of very ... "eccentric" individuals. As long as the person in charge can figure out how to keep them happy and working in tandem, you'll get great results. The problems usually occur when outsiders start butting in, or when part of the job is dealing with more "normal" people.
Typical - whenever there's a problem, the officers always blame the mechanics.
http://www.nanooze.org/
What? It's better than slashdot. Even google agrees.
How many people actually run Windows as non-admin users?
In an enterprise environment? The majority. On government systems? EVERYONE.
This e-card had nothing to do with admin rights, so claiming that "the root problem is that Windows is designed to be used in a non-locked down mode" is silly, at best.
Or, to put it in simpler words: "Apologists like you are why we have lousy computer security as a nation."
You can install many programs in windows without needing root privilidges. Or, alternately, you can download a portable version of the program and put it anywhere you want. Or, if no portable version exists, get Universal Installer and extract the files to whatever location you want. Very few programs actually NEED root privilidges to run on windows, it's just that most people aren't aware of the alternative, and most software vendors couldn't be bothered to offer an easy non-root-install option.
No, not at all. This just shows that there are idiots everywhere. Anyone who's ever worked in IT has had to deal with a coworker or boss who is so incompetent that they'd probably screw up a fry-chef job at McDonalds. I'm not exactly shocked that a few of them clicked a spoofed e-mail.
Yeah, I hate to stereotype - I know there are some completely normal homeschoolers out there - but when such a significant number of them are crazy people looking to completely control their kids, sometimes it's just better to lump you all in together :)
I have no problem with homeschooling in principle - I have a problem with it because it's abused so often, and because there's really no way to prevent it being abused. We can only control it through standardized testing, but it's quite easy for parents to say "Those EEEVILUTIONSTS want me to teach you the devils words, so I'll show you this stuff so you can spit it out on a test", and there's no way to stop that kind of brainwashing. So I have to oppose the whole system, even though I like the idea of having it as an option.
And I agree on public school. We can do a lot better. Unfortunately, there appear to be no politicians with the balls to make the required reforms and let the chips fall where they may.
My browsing history is quite similar - it's not an issue unless you actually get accused of some serious crime that's related to some of those searches. Even then, you're right, it's circumstantial at best, although if you had the bad luck to "double delete" your history within a couple days of when the crime took place, it sure would make you look awful guilty. Sure there'd be a chance that you're that one-in-a-trillion guy who searches for unusual topics, AND regularly deletes his browser history, AND somehow got falsely accused of committing a crime using things he researches before anyone knew about his browsing habits .... but, honestly, if I were on that jury, I'd find that mix of circumstances awful compelling. Not enough to convict on, but definitely getting close.
Yeah, and everyone I know in the ghetto has at least a PhD. Plus they all run their own businesses, quite successfully. There are no poor people anywhere - it's a myth.
WTF are you going on about?
A bit off-topic, but what's homeschooling got to do with anything? It was the **public** school board in Kansas that decided creationism was as scientifically valid as... science, not the Kansas coalition of homeschoolers
Yeah, the homeschoolers are the ones who think that the Kansas public school board hasn't gone far enough.
Frankly, with the shape the public school system is in these days it's hard for me to imagine any alternative doing worse.
http://creationmuseum.org/
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/12/04/uncover-true-history/
Hell, we may as well save the country some money, disband the public school system and let the kiddies learn by sitting them in front of the TV.
Intro to science: 2012!
Intro to forensics: CSI.
Basic psychology: Fraser.
Sex-ed: Sex in the City.
I dunno, but I think the homeschoolers might have a problem with that. Jesus never said anything about TV's being ok.
Think if a majority of the people in this country were convinced by "2012" that the world would really end at that year. Their priorities for government spending would be dramatically different.
Yeah, they might start throwing trillions of dollars at all sorts of useless stuff!
Oh, wait ....
That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that. ...
So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
That is, in a word, "retarded". You can use that reasoning to excuse just about anything. Certainty isn't required in order to have confidence in a conclusion, nor is the lack of certainty a reason to accept any random nonsense.
Creationists do this all the time with their "teach the controversy" bullshit, when they say things like "you can't be sure how all of evolution happened, therefor my magic-man with his talking snake is just as valid". It's asinine when they do it, and it's just as asinine here.
What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
Leo Szilard would have found some other famous scientist to sign his name to the letter.
What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
What would have happened if pink unicorns farted fallout?
You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
I'm not sure what part of "my car will be ready for replacement" you didn't get, but apparently there are at least a few people with mod points who have equally poor comprehension skills. Also, I'm not sure what part of "I'm not American" you don't get. It's rather sad that even though you only wrote two complete sentences, you managed to get them both completely wrong.
The trend here is the exact opposite, and our fuel costs more. I dunno what the average income is in Chicago, but if a 30% increase in fuel prices led to a 70% decline in suburb property values, you guys must be really hurtin'.
For my part, I make about 50% more money these days than I did back when the prices hit record highs. Back then I did cut down my driving a little bit (as in "no more hour-long joyrides every other day - I'll go once a week"), but didn't even think about moving. Nowadays it wouldn't even be an issue. And no, I'm not rich by any means, although my income is higher than the average.
China already heavily subsidizes oil imports.
Their price is about 20% lower than ours.
Also, Americans need far more oil per capita vs third world citizens
Well DUH. You just said that they have way fewer drivers - OF COURSE they'd have lower per-capita consumption!
If you mean that the average Chinese driver uses less fuel than the average American driver, you're right, but how much less? The average Chinese person makes about $3,000 per year. Compare that to about $25,000 in the US, or $32,000 here in Canada. Even if they use only 1/10th the fuel that we do, they'd be just as hard hit by an increase in prices. Actually, they'd be harder hit, because they have much less disposable income; compared to us, a FAR higher percentage of their income goes towards food, water, and shelter.
The situation is even worse in India, where the average income is about $1,000 per year.
None of which has much to do with your assertion that "suburbs are unsustainable". There's no doubt that oil consumption and oil prices are going to go up over the next decade or two, but to turn that into a "the-sky-is-falling" scenario is just ridiculous.
In that case I'd say you need to consult a psychiatrist. What you just said makes as much sense to me as:
"Eat a peanut-butter sandwich? I would feel like a cannibal. Might as well devour a fetus."
If opening the trunk of your car makes you feel like a slave, there is something very wrong with your neural wiring. And I honestly don't mean that as an insult - I just don't know any more polite way of saying it.
My guess is the next "world war" (more a "worldwide war") will be governments vs. the people.
What the fuck does that even MEAN?
Which will work fine until oil is at $120-150/barrel, and you're spending a non-negligible amount on fuel for commuting and can't afford your mortgage and food.
Nonsense. Oil already hit $120 a few years back, and I don't know anyone who had to chose between commuting and traveling. Even if it hits $200 per barrel 5 years from now, my car will be ready for replacement, and I can buy another one which uses half as much fuel.
There are billions of people between India and China who are going to be driving soon. And who will be using oil to do so. Don't kid yourself, the suburbs are unsustainable.
Yes, billions of people in India and China will be able to afford $150/barrel fuel, but people in first world nations won't. Nice logic there.
I can tell you that beating yourself over the head with a hammer is the wrong way to cure a headache, without needing to provide an alternative remedy. If you choose to keep hammering your skull because you think I'm "a critic, not a solver", that's you're prerogative - a more rational approach would be to consider my advice, and try something else.
Nonsense - if Russia hadn't gotten involved, the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the first nuke would have detonated over Berlin. Either way, the allies would have come out on top. Russia contributed a great deal - and sacrificed and suffered more than any other nation - but the idea that the war could not have been won without them is pure fiction.
Not sure about the Dominican republic, but Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada weren't "unilateral". Not disagreeing with your point, but if you're going to count non-unilateral engagements, then the list grows far, FAR larger. People seem to forget that the vast majority of US military conflicts have been at the behest or with the cooperation of the UN and/or other nations.