Pangloss

The National Geographic Channel is doing a two-part series (four hours total) starting on Monday night about 9/11, focusing on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's rise to power. It takes a lot of newer information into account, and should be an interesting (and unlike what many of you seem to prefer to expose yourselves to, objective) piece. The link below is to NGC's home page, where you can enter your zip code and find out what channel it comes on in your area: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ I'll probably post a review after I've seen it next week.

Why are you wasting my time with this partisan garbage? You don't think the far left pulls crap like that out of its ass as well?

Ok well that seems like a reasonable position to me. So let me just break it down into a simple question. How would you go about protecting a Jessican Lunsford from a John Couey? Even though these cases are relatively rare, they do happen, and you seem to agree that they are terrible things. Are we to simply throw in the towel because the number of these cases are, in your view, "greatly exaggerated"? Or is there, in fact, something that we can do that even you would agree with? (In case you're not familiar, or for the benefit of other readers if you are, Lunsford was a 9-year-old girl who was abducted and murdered by John Couey earlier this year in Florida. Couey had a history of similar offenses but had served his time.) I guess what I'm asking you is this: Is there anything that society can do in terms of legislation that would improve protection of minors?

No, and in fact I expect you to say no, on the basis of the criminals having already paid their debt to society. Which I think is a reasonable point, but what I was hoping to do is return the discussion to the issue of reasonable (fair) prevention with regard to minors (who can't protect themselves). In other words, to see if we can find some reasonable compromise that increases protection for children while maintaining fair treatment for former criminals. (Edit: But far be it for me to put words in your mouth -- what do you think?)

So Thomas, since you agree that violent criminals can harm children, would you agree to removing criminals with a history of violence against young children (not sexual acts, mind you -- violent felonies) from hurricane shelters, with the stipulation that reception rooms and meeting facilities at a local prison would be made available as an alternative?

Looks like a font issue to me. It's actually displaying fine for me with Mozilla 1.7.

Are you kidding? Microsoft wouldn't be where it is today without embrace-and-extend. It goes right to the core of both the problem that people have with Microsoft, and the very reason for their success. Microsoft cares very much whether people use IE. Very much indeed.

Well as I said above, you're going to have to look it up. But this is how I think it would work: Go to the command line and type this: shutdown.bat /user:Administrator (assuming that "shutdown.bat" is the name of your script) If that works, it ought to also be possible to incorporate that user switch into the batch file somehow, but you're going to have to look that one up. Perhaps something like this: shutdown.exe -s -m /user:Administrator \\oliver -t 5 -c "JMM testing" -f But that's just a wild guess. I'm sorry I haven't been able to give you anything more definitive on this, but as I say, it's been a while since I've done anything along these lines. Good luck!

It is hypocritical, but it also makes almost magically perfect sense. To put it another way, they went to a lot of effort to convince each other that a strong central government was a bad thing, and then promptly turned around and created.... a strong central government. That conundrum is often referred to by the Founding Fathers as "the great dilemma" or the "central issue", and how that dilemma was to be resolved was one of the central questions of the republican experiment. It was, after all, something that had arguably never been done before on that scale. As John Adams put it, "The lawgivers of antiquity... legislated for single cities.... But who can legislate for 20 or 30 states, each of which is greater than Greece or Rome at those times?" Even worse, those examples (Greece and Rome) were hardly encouraging, given their outcomes. It's important to also keep in mind that because of America that very dilemma, during the 19th century, also became the central dilemma of the entire western world, as more and more nations began to overthrow authoritarian rule and follow the path the early Americans (rightly or wrongly, with high vision or low greed) had blazed. So if Americans were being hypocrits... well... they eventually had a lot of company.

I knew you were going to say that.

A reasonable argument. I don't entirely agree with Dak there, because the purpose of law is not retribution/revenge, it's to enforce fairness (e.g. "justice") -- to establish equal opportunity under law. The only thing I would add would be in the area of minors. Assault on an adult is not the same thing as assault on a young child. The latter should constitute a stiffer penalty, not because a child might be traumatized, but because children are less capable of defending themselves. For the purposes of establishing equality, on other words, one can argue that it's a different criminal act. With that stipulation, however I would generally agree with the point. Now here's the fun part: Would you agree to removing criminals with a history of violence against very young children (not sexual acts, mind you -- violent felonies) from hurricane shelters, with the stipulation that reception rooms and meeting facilities at a local prison would be made available as an alternative?

By the way, Thomas, repealing rape laws is a conservative cause. Note that nobody here is labelling you a conservative, however. Labelling is so unfair, don't you think?

I didn't say you were wrong. Do not lie or otherwise mischaracterize my statements. You made the assertions. You get to present your evidence. That's how it works. You don't get to make an assertion and then accuse others of being wrong because they can't prove it. That is detrimental to a fair and open exchange of ideas. Let's take a look at what you have: Your link suggests that 212 of 1218 cases were disproved (17%). Congratulations, you've supported your claim that false accusations take place. See how much fun this can be? But let's review your statement: 1) You have asserted that men who are raped never charge their aggressors with rape. Do you have any supporting evidence for this? If you don't, we'll simply have to take that as unsubstantiated opinion, and judge its worth on that (low) level. 2) You have asserted that there are laws against the rape of women (specifically). Do you have any supporting evidence that such laws exist? If not, we'll simply have to assume that this statement is false. 3) You have implied that men are treated less fairly than women. Seems like an interesting hypothesis. Can you back it up? 4) You asserted that the rate of false accusations is "high enough to make the laws of questionable worth". (This is the one you supported this with evidence, now the onus is upon the reader to challenge that assertion in turn.) Three points need to be backed up there.

What is the rate of false accusation? WHAT laws against the rape of women? Aren't they against rape, period? What evidence do you have that men are treated less fairly than women? Who says men never sue for being raped in prison? Why are you comparing (confusing) civil lawsuits with criminal charges?

I've seen the stories about the new info as well, but I think we should still wait for the full story to come out before drawing conclusions. Just speaking for myself, I feel that I took the discussion too far earlier and I want to be careful about making the same mistake twice.

Some good background in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601700.html That one might be subscription; if so, try this one: http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/16/technology/computer_outages/ I have a funny feeling that this particular attack will have lasting implications, for two reasons: 1) It deeply affected the news media. One of the stories above quotes an admin as predicting that it will take weeks to repair the damage. 2) It underscores the problem of legacy OS installations. Reportedly, this worm only affected Windows 2000 computers. What I think this event has uncovered is the vast number of computers that are way behind the upgrade curve. That issue (the reluctance of companies to upgrade to the latest operating system) is often discussed in the industry, but even so I think what we've seen here is a bit of a wake-up call. The problem is more serious than we realized. This is a reminder that older systems require just as much care and feeding as newer ones, if not more. I think it's also more good (deserved) fodder for the pro-Linux crowd.

You know, debate is about more than expression of opinion, and you cannot browbeat people into submission by labelling them, or endlessly repeating your wildest unsubstantiated claims. If you want to say something and refuse to back it up, fine, do that! Just don't go back and REPEAT IT as if you have not been challenged. You were challenged, you LOST, get over it and move on. THAT's what debate is all about. You win some, you lose some, you move on and you try to learn. If what instead you are looking for is submission, compliance, and a group of people who will simple nod sagely at whatever you say... well... quite frankly you've come to the wrong place. Debate is as much about LISTENING as it is about talking.

You're changing the subject. What we were discussing was hypocrisy. We weren't discussing the subject of why you label people. All I see above is just more justification. But the people you're labelling are reading these discussions, remember? This is another example of something I mentioned in my last post -- if at first you don't succeed, rather than respond to the logical points that people challenge you with (such as my pointing out your hypocrisy by quoting your own words), rather than defend your assertions, rather than substantiate your claims, you simply repeat them. Why can't you simply say what you believe, and then allow others to do the same? Is this a free country, or is it just a free country for Thomas? More rationalization. You made a crass generalization. It doesn't matter why you did it. You don't like it when other people do it to you, but you seem to think it's okay when you do it to other people -- in your mind their bad behavior justifies any bad behavior on your part. As I explained above, it isn't a debate. Debate isn't about the number of posts, Thomas, it's about whether people are allowed to express themselves, to challenge each other's assertions, to look deeper than the surface. You're stepping all over that. How are you stepping on debate? By: - Refusing to substantiate your claims, which you state as facts http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=198137&postcount=89 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=198157&postcount=91 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13513&page=5 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196559&postcount=35 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196793&postcount=40 - Repeating your assertions when asked to substantiate them (when you could simply, politely say "well I don't know, that's just my opinion" and move along) http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196559&postcount=35 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195125&postcount=12 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195169&postcount=14 - Commenting off the subject, changing the subject into something that fits your "conservatives are evil" and "if you disagree with me you must be a conservative" agenda http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195111&postcount=10 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195499&postcount=30 - Rudely/sarcastically injecting your agendized remarks into other people's threads because you view those subjects as being counter to your purpose http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195111&postcount=10 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196804&postcount=3 - Making wild claims to get attention, and then refusing to stand behind your claims in any way, simply repeating them ad nauseum until the other party shuts up and goes away (see all of the above)

Yes you are, you're characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as being "them", and then going on to demonize "them" in absolute terms. You characterized my comments in that manner in another thread, in spite of the fact that I'm obviously a moderate/centrist, and everyone on these boards knows it. Don't even think about pretending that you haven't been personal in your remarks. I have no idea what you're talking about here. See? You just did it. You just labelled everyone who calls you a "conspiracy theorist" as a conservative! Is it just completely incomprehensible to you that someone could disagree with you and NOT be a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy? Yeesh! Then we agree that labelling is a bad thing. So why do you participate in it? Like I said, you are bound and determined to label anyone who disagrees with you as being a right-wing extremist. You are determined to force a two-wrongs atmosphere on this board. That is detrimental to open debate, and I am calling it out. And claim that not only have you refused produce any supporting evidence for, but when your assertion is challenged, you label the respondent as a "conservative" (see above), ignore their contrary evidence, and repeat your assertion. There's nothing wrong with unsubstantiated opinion, but it cannot be used in debate as contrary evidence. Opinions should be stated and the poster should move on. Yet you refuse to do that, once again contributing detrimentally to the spirit of open debate on this board. You insist that the last word on your subjects, subjects which you have hijacked from other people, be your politically correct, far-left view, and anybody who says anything different, no matter how well substantiated, will be responded to in exactly the same manner with exactly the same repetition as before. That is not debate, sir. That is contradiction. AND it is detrimental to the spirt and atmosphere of open debate on these boards. I again accuse you and charge you of deliberately attempting to stall, obfuscate, derail and destroy open debate on these boards. How do you respond to this charge, sir? Got it. I rest my case.

So two wrongs make a right, then? Any overgeneralization on your part is justified because of something you perceive that "they" are doing? A group of people, I might add, which you steadfastly refuse to identify as being anything other than anybody who doesn't agree with you. Every post you make, Thomas, is the most eggregious example of two-wrongs thinking ever displayed in the entire time I've been present on these discussion boards. The fact that your behavior is tolerated, when I have seen it NOT tolerated when coming from far-right posters, is utterly inexplicable to me.

I think that kind of crass, unsubstantiated overgeneralization is repugnant, detestable, and devestating to the spirit of open debate.

When you install XP, be sure and reformat the hard drive. Don't try to perform an upgrade. It may leave the old video drivers intact, which may well be causing the problem.

Ah, now the picture begins to become clearer. XP Home is very different in a number of respects in this area. Is Oliver also running XP Home? I don't know if you will be able to do this. I've simply never done any remote script execution in XP Home. It may just be something hard-coded not to work. They put in a lot of really funny restrictions that were specifically designed to stop people from managing XP Home boxes across a network, which is what we're talking about here, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were just not allowed. Have you tried putting the /user:Administrator switch into the execution string yet? It seems like a logical thing to try. Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm at a loss. You're going to have to hit the Microsoft newsgroups for this one. Do you know where to go for those? Sorry guy.

Are you sure? You should be able to see the Administrator account in the Local Users and Groups applet if you're logged in with that initial account (the one that was automatically dropped into the administrators group). It works for me. You might want to go to Computer Management (right-click on My Computer in the Start menu and click on Manage), then go to Local Users and Groups, go to Users, and see if the Administrator account is listed there. Shared Documents is not normally visible across the network. It's actually for sharing documents between different users on the same computer. Did you share it on purpose? Nothing wrong with that, it's just a little unusual. Normally you create folders specific folders for that purpose, and share them. I'm not criticizing your methods here, just pointing out all irregularities because I'm still pretty confused about the problem is. Just to clarify, is this what you're telling me that you are doing? 0) This is NOT while in Safe Mode w/networking -- just boot normally. I don't know why you did that, but it isn't necessary. Again, nothing about any of these accounts should ever have anything to do with the boot state of the computer. 1) You log in to the local system as Administrator (not the first-user account you mentioned earlier, which was also an administrator account because it was dropped into the administrator's group automatically -- you're saying now that you are not using that account at the moment, right?). 2) You are able to access shares on the remote system and you are not prompted for a password when you do so. (Which would make sense, because both systems have an account on them which is called "Administrator", with the same (no) password.) 3) You are unable to execute your script in that configuration. Is that right?

Thanks. I've got a computer here with a 1ghz older Athlon proc, an 80gb HD, 768mb RAM and a GeForce 3 Ti500. It's currently running my blog on Windows Server 2003, but I've just built a new rig for that purpose (Pentium D 820, 2gb RAM, dual 300gb drives on RAID 0) (it's for other things as well), so I thought I'd load up a Linux distro on the older box, and fit it out with Apache and MySQL. That will give me a full LAMPS hosting box to run alongside my .NET hosting box. My goal is full web hosting capability here at the house. Silly, I know, because I only have a DSL line, but it's just something fun to kick around with. I've got a couple of low-use domains I host, and I also want to showcase all my .NET and PHP apps (haven't written any significant examples of the latter yet, but given the cost of Windows Server 2003 compared with a LAMPS box, I really want to).