fiat: a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.

Since the delay of the employer mandate was literally done via a formal decree from President Obama, I'm not sure why you're objecting to the OP's language choice...

No, it was the reverse.

The GOP tried to delay this fiasco a year as part of funding the 18% or whatever of the government that is "discretionary". The Senate and President shot that attempt down.

BTW, none of the funding for this website implementation was part of that discretionary funding. So no effect there, either.

Except, typically in situations like this, if you hire an armed security guard, you will usually get an off-duty police officer with many of the same powers and duties you cited.

Even an unarmed security guard can arrest anyone for any misdemeanor they personally witness, and that arrest includes detaining that someone. Of course, in CA anyone else has that same "power", but likely doesn't realize exactly how it works if they haven't done the security guard licensing.

Security guards can also ask people to leave (and stay off) property owned by whomever they are working for and if they don't, they are subject to trespassing laws. That helps for keeping specific locations clear of criminals.

In the end, most security guards (especially if they are unarmed) are only there to deter, observe and report. If you have a group of people and a security guard, criminals are more likely to go pick on a group of people without the visible deterrence of a security guard. Otherwise, they'll have someone who knows their job is to take pictures, write down license plates, observe and report, thus increasing the criminals chance of actually getting arrested.

So yeah, under current CA law, a security guard isn't as good as a full blown police presence, but they're obviously useful enough that banks, malls, HOAs, stadiums and other places that need to provide additional security are willing to pay for them.

Sure, I'd prefer an absolute reduction in spending, because we're funding lots of things I'd personally prefer to do away with at the federal level (Large portions of the NSA, the drug war and associated prison federal costs, big chunks of the military's overseas bases, corporate welfare, including the ACA, I can think of plenty...), but too many people don't realize how much we've increased spending in constant dollars at the federal level over the years.

But at least slowing down that spending increase would be a start...

Sorry, but if you look at the differences in inflation adjusted spending and tax revenues for the last 30 years or so it's pretty obvious that while federal revenue has grown over time, federal spending has just grown much faster. It's pretty hard to make an argument that any sort of tax cut is the reason for spending having gone up so much.

Revenue generally tracks the economy, while spending just goes up and up. That's the problem causing huge deficits. The government will have to get spending under control (which flattened a little in the last "shutdown"s in 94-95) in order to stop adding to the debt constantly. It won't even take much, just a reduction in the increase in spending would balance the budget over the long run.

Now that you've changed your tune, it's obvious you realize you were wrong all along. Of course, with your posting history on other things, that's not much of a shocker, is it? You have a lot of these "misunderstandings".

The botnet doesn't need a privileged user. It can generally use the machine's resources for whatever it desires, including making outgoing connections to compromise more hosts, with just a non-privileged user.

You're totally off topic. If anyone is a troll, it's you. Sadly, it appears you're just an idiot who spouts off without even knowing the basics of what is being discussed.

The botnet being discussed tries to login with a series of usernames over time with each member of the botnet attempting to guess a different password for each username in the series.

So PermitRootLogin is irrelevant to defending against it, other than presumably it might eventually try root among all the other usernames it's attempting.

Having PasswordAuthentication set to no instead of yes so that it can't guess the password of a user it manages to guess the username for would be the only viable defense to the specific botnet that is under discussion.

If you have any honor at all, you'll now go read the article and then come back and admit your mistakes. I'm not holding my breath. Even an AC knows more about what we're talking about here.

Public records are publicly available and government photos are "not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work."..

That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something. Posting the final disposition of charges, or something along those lines would be sufficient to defend against that.

This is really one of those literal RTFM situations...

Notice I was talking about password authentication?

As noted above, PasswordAuthentication defaults to no on FreeBSD.

How about some popular Linux flavors?
Ubuntu? Debian? Fedora?
Those are the top 3 in usage, right? So I checked those and guess what?
PasswordAuthentication defaults to yes.

So yeah, could that be why he didn't mention the botnet logging into to lots of BSD boxes with password authentication?

Perhaps you could bother to read the whole comment you are replying to and reply in context of what is being discussed? Consider yourself corrected.

Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...

Brilliant!

Since that doesn't contradict anything I've said, what's the point of this? I've never said the ACA wasn't passed and I've never said the GOP hasn't tried to repeal it. The original post I was responding to stated that they'd tried to repeal it unsuccessfully 42 times and it was insane to keep trying to repeal it in whole or in parts. I just pointed out that counted in that 42 number were successful attempts to repeal parts that were signed into law, negating the point I was actually responding to. Having a hard time following the thread?

I've read it. It would be more enlightening if you actually claimed that something I said contradicted it.

Yes, Harry Reid tried to "shutdown" the government in the exact same way over trying to defund the already passed law authorizing the use of deadly force in Iraq. He attached it to an emergency supplemental spending bill. The only difference with Reid is that he ultimately didn't have the votes to succeed in his attempt.

You're apparently still completely missing my original point that current law doesn't authorize discretionary spending after Sept. 30th. To change that law is what you and the Democrats want. They need a majority of the House to go along with any new law like that. It's the new law to change that which the Senate and the House haven't agreed on the contents. The House gets to be a big part of deciding what will go in that law. Sadly, the Dems refuse to negotiate, demanding that they will only consider passing a new appropriations law if its worded exactly how they want it to be.

I have answered your question, but I'll patiently summarize my answer again for you. Harry Reid himself has tried to do similar things with past appropriations bills. It's part of the process of passing a new law authorizing spending that they have to pass Congress just like any other new law. If as part of that process, the elected representatives want to make the law read whatever they want (subject to the USSC deciding to throw part out), they can. It's the way the process is designed. What's the big deal about the process proceeding like it has before? This discretionary spending "shutdown" scenario has played out 17 times since 1977 when they politicians couldn't agree on the wording of the new appropriations law. It happens. It's not the end of the world. Most people barely notice, other than in the news.

Maybe because the default setting in BSD is
          PasswordAuthentication = no
and
          PermitRootLogin = no

Could that be why he didn't mention the botnet logging into to lots of BSD boxes with password authentication?

You seem misinformed. That 42 number of repeal attempts included bills that passed the House and the Senate and were signed into law. That's why you don't have to file a 1099 for every business transaction over $600. It was part of the law that was repealed. That's why the CLASS program went away. It was part of the law that was repealed, etc...

I'll try and keep this simple for you, since you obviously didn't understand the point the first time.
The current law of the land is that certain non-essential agencies and programs don't receive funding after September 30th, 2013. That law was passed by Congress and signed by the President. In order to change that law, a new law would have to be passed. In a long standing tradition in the Congress, plus a grant of power from the Constitution, the elected Representatives get to decide what will go into new laws.

In order to spend money that hasn't already been appropriated by a law, there must be a new law passed. The "discretionary" parts of the government's spending (that's the part that isn't getting funded right now) is up to the discretion of Congress every year, because that's how they wrote the laws authorizing it that made it legal to spend any money on it in the first place.

Thus, for example, Harry Reid tried to defund the troops in the field in Iraq as part of a previous discretionary spending authorization. He lost his attempt because a majority of Congress didn't agree with him, but he tried. Notice that fits exactly with your example about defunding the military over a partisan point?

Maybe you should go back and actually understand how this government funding stuff works and how its worked in the past before just regurgitating the latest left-wing media talking points? Ignoring the actual history and the legal process just makes you seem ignorant to those who can follow what's been going on.

Your comment's moderation illustrates either the bias of the people moderating, or their ignorance, as the comment itself is clueless. Feel free to mod me down for pointing that out, but metamods should take note.

The Hastert Rule is enforced by the majority in Congress. If a majority of Representatives wanted to get rid of Boehner, or change the rule, or even leave him alone and bring anything they wanted to the floor of the House to vote on it, they could. The Speaker can be fired anytime you can get a majority of Congress to go along. The Caucus rules can be changed any time a majority wants to.

While some Representatives have publicly said they'd support this bill or that one, that's not the same as actually signing a discharge petition, or wanting to vote on a particular bill so much they are willing to go against the other members of their Party. It's like when asked if they want ice cream, they say "Sure, I want some ice cream, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for some in order to eat it."