The question seemed easy enough: We’ve dropped a user, now we want to change the DEFINER on all database objects that currently have it set to this dropped user?

This should be possible by checking the INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables of the appropriate object types (routines, triggers, views and events) and performing an ALTER on each of them that just modifies the DEFINER but nothing else, right?

Unfortunately it isn’t that easy, or at least not yet (see http://bugs.mysql.com/73894 and https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6731 ).

“If you are in a boring meeting or driving or otherwise in the middle of something where nodding off is unacceptable, just hold your breath,” one person shared.

“If you hold it long enough, your body will send a rush of blood to your brain, which in turn will make you suddenly feel wide awake. The effect is not long-lived, though, but it can save you when you just need to stay awake and alert for just a bit longer.” //

“If you get a mosquito bite, run a spoon under hot water (not hot enough to burn obvs) and then press the back it to the bite, and repeat that a couple times — it helps ‘cook’ the itchy protein so that you don’t have that large histamine reaction!” advised another user.

“If you burn your tongue, put sugar on it,” suggested one person.

“Was in Mexico with a partner several years ago, and he got overconfident with hot sauce. He started freaking out and the waiter came over and advised him to pour a sugar packet on his tongue. It worked almost immediately, and I’ve always wondered if it was psychosomatic or a real thing!” someone wrote. //

“Sniff alcohol wipes when nauseous. Or in a pinch, hand sanitizer. The isopropyl alcohol somehow instantly stops nausea, even faster and more efficiently than ondansetron,”

The scheme highlights still unaddressed vulnerabilities in the voting process that leave elections ripe for fraud. //

In Pennsylvania, where officials swear elections are safe and secure, three elected officials are headed to prison after admitting they cheated in the 2021 election. Their cases reveal common vulnerabilities in the voting process that have yet to be cured.

The three men, who all at one time were elected Democrat members of the Millbourne Borough Council, tried to rig the mayoral election in favor of one of them. They failed by 30 votes, got caught, and in June each was sentenced to prison. Among the charges were conspiracy to commit voter fraud, giving false information in registering to vote, and fraudulent voter registration. //

The scheme highlights how easily electronic voter registration and ballot requests, drop off boxes, signatures, photo identification, and in-person voting each have a role in allowing or preventing election fraud. If they had been forced to vote in person and verify their address with a photo ID, this cheating would not have happened.

Rwanda and Congo Sign U.S.-Brokered Peace Treaty
President Trump claims credit for the outcome. The main question now is how the treaty will be implemented as fighting still rages in eastern Congo.

This supposed falling out may be making a mountain out of a molehill. In 1931, the American chewing gum model William Wrigley Jr., speaking to "The American Magazine," said:

Business is built by men who care—care enough to disagree, fight it out to a finish, get facts. When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not mince words when criticizing the lack of legal rationale behind the Biden appointee’s emotionally-charged dissent. //

While noting how the principal dissent authored by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor “focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett highlighted how Jackson’s dissent “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.” More specifically, she underscored how her Democrat-appointed colleague’s expressed views on the power of courts go beyond those of judicial supremacists — those who believe the judiciary is superior to the other branches of government. //

“Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), [Jackson] offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.'” //

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.“ //

While agreeing that the executive has an obligation to follow the law, Barrett chastised Jackson for “skip[ping] over” the fact that the judiciary must do so as well, and that separation of powers must be upheld.

“JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ … That goes for judges too.”

If cases targeting American energy continue to prevail, ‘it could result in shutting down the oil industry.’ //

Senators met yesterday for a subcommittee hearing to discuss claims that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), foreign donors, and leftist legal activism are behind a “systematic campaign” to dismantle American energy dominance.

Throughout the hearing, Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, emphasized how foreign funding and activist litigation are undermining U.S. energy infrastructure, posing a national security threat. His four Democrat colleagues repeatedly dismissed the concerns as a “conspiracy theory,” instead focusing on energy costs and “global warming.”

The “assault by the radical left,” “paid for by the [CCP],” seeks to “seize control of our courts [and] to weaponize litigation against U.S. energy producers,” Cruz said. He noted the assault is “three-pronged,” weaponizing “foreign funding, mass litigation, and judicial indoctrination” against “American energy independence.”

As conservatives, we consider ourselves to be the guardians of classics, protecting them from woke mobs. But works like Of Mice and Men were dubbed “classics” as our Western values were already coming to a close. I’m wary of books selected by leftist professors from the ’60s enjoying the same immunity status as veritable classics like Hamlet and Jane Eyre. The difference is that older classics are firmly rooted in our Western values, while many modern works are expressly fatalistic.

In other words, recent wokeism isn’t the only thing we should be looking out for on school reading lists. Literary trash has been the staple of the education system for decades. //

Modern literature shows hardship without hope. Plenty of literature depicts the hard realities of life. The difference is that some portray this in a context of hope, while others don’t. For example, Crime and Punishment portrays Sonya being compelled into prostitution; however, it makes it clear that she can choose a path of redemption. Modern literature, on the other hand, tends to have the message that “life is terrible and that is it.” The characters are not free agents but are acted upon solely for the purpose of affirming the author’s bleak message. They inculcate a victim mentality, not fortitude.

Modern literature focuses solely on negative examples, not heroes. Yes, Anna Karenina depicts adultery, but it also features Kitty and Levin’s loving marriage. In books like Of Mice and Men, there are no heroes worth emulating, just darkness. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Since it is so likely that [children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.” We should reevaluate literature that doesn’t show the good along with the bad.

Modern literature is ineffective in instilling morality. We can’t raise moral individuals by only showing them what not to do. First of all, studies show that when presented with educational TV shows, children are likely to imitate the depicted bullying rather than the problem-solving the programs intend to model. What’s far more likely to inspire virtue in young people is positive examples. But the modern authors that schools tend to favor are too cynical to provide heroes to emulate. //

Overly dark content desensitizes viewers rather than making them more empathetic and moral human beings. Well-intentioned media can have unintended adverse effects. Even if viewing violence doesn’t increase aggression in all individuals, studies show that it does consistently desensitize viewers and decrease empathy for victims. This is worth thinking about when deciding which books to expose young minds to.

There’s much better literature out there. Young men used to read riveting works with exemplary heroes like Robinson Crusoe. That has since been replaced with Lord of the Flies. Which one is more likely to teach a young boy about the sort of man he should become?

To be clear, I’m not knocking books just because they’re new; I’m suggesting that they’re a departure from our values and other works merit more attention. For example, The Lord of the Rings and To Kill a Mockingbird were written in the same century as Lord of the Flies, but both depict light and goodness along with evil. While Lord of the Flies only shows the fall of man, Lord of the Rings shows redemption and heroism. It’s interesting to consider that although Tolkien fought in the same World War that turned other writers to the dark and the cynical, he chose to write about goodness and light.

‘When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.’. //

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.

“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

Even if everyone who is eligible to vote in the country would have voted, President Trump still would have won the 2024 presidential election, a new study out Thursday from the Pew Research Center finds.

Trump won in 2024 with just under 50% of the vote, 49.7%-48.2% over Democrat Kamala Harris.

Roughly 64% of the eligible-voting population turned out in 2024, the second highest since 1904. 2020 was the highest.

But even if everyone who could vote did, Trump would have won by an even wider margin, 48%-45%, according to Pew's validated voters survey.

The survey of almost 9,000 voters was conducted in the weeks after the 2024 presidential election. Pew verified whether they had voted or not over the last five presidential elections using publicly available commercial voter files. For context, most well-conducted national polls include roughly 1,000 interviews.

Pew asked non-voters how they would have voted and found they would have broken for Trump, 44%-40%. That's a big change from 2020 and 2016 when they said they would have chosen Democrats. In 2020, they said they preferred Joe Biden 46%-35%. In 2016, it was Hillary Clinton, 37%-30%.

That upends a longstanding belief in politics that higher turnout generally helps Democrats. Younger and non-white voters, who tend to vote Democratic, are also among the least likely to vote.

But in 2024, Trump's coalition grew – it got more ethnically diverse and younger.

Anybody who knows a law book from an LL Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept of universal injunctions. There's no basis in statute, no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There's no basis in English common law.

They just made it up because they don't agree with what a president or Congress has done. You know, if they disagree, you know, I'm sorry—fill out a hurt feelings support. Buy a comfort rock.

But they can't just say, "I disagree and I'm putting the entire action by another branch of government on hold, because I don't like it," and that's what they've been doing…. //

They're not the superior branch of government. They're an equal branch of government. //

RocketGeezer NorCalGC
a day ago
That’s largely true for SCOTUS too, since Article 3 defines it’s jurisdiction, but doesn’t really define it role. SCOTUS has done a pretty good job of defining its role since the founding.

The lower federal courts, whose establishment, funding, role and jurisdiction were to be done by Congress, have been established and funded by Congress, but have essentially defined their own role and jurisdiction. Naturally, they’ve gone far afield from what the founders likely envisioned, especially in the last 30 or 40 years.

The lower federal judiciary now boils down to small, insecure people in minor roles trying to make themselves way more important than they were intended to be. I’d say that most of the lower federal judiciary has a bad case of SCOTUS envy! //

camd83 Marek76
5 hours ago
Excellent point! The President is the only person elected by the whole country - how can an unelected, single district judge, override action for the USA taken by the country-wide elected official? Wish SCOTUS was more definitive in their decision. Looks like the Left will just switch from injunctions to class-action lawsuits which will be approved by these same judges.

The 2025 Half Century spectacular will showcase large daily field demonstrations, remarkable feature displays, a daily Parade of Power down the runway, and sanctioned tractor pulls.

We look forward to seeing you August 21-24!

In an appearance on Fox News' Faulkner Focus, Kennedy said, "Well, people will still get indemnified for it to the extent that they're already indemnified. But, you know, it is an issue, it's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities, although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities.

"The issue is parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a report of a meta-review of all the science on it in August that said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and your loss of IQ."

Kennedy has long advocated for the removal of fluoride from drinking water and some states have looked to remove it, including Florida and Oklahoma. While research has shown effects on brain development, some dental organizations have raised concerns that removing fluoride from drinking water will lead to poorer oral hygiene.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released a video highlighting the huge win given to parents by the Supreme Court when they ruled in favor of the parents of children attending the Montgomery County school system, in the landmark case of Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Parents sued Montgomery County School Board Superintendent Thomas Taylor for introducing illustrated LGBT books into the children's curriculum without notifying parents. The school decided it didn't need to ask permission, resulting in the lawsuit that went all the way up to the highest court in the land, where it backed the parents and upheld their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Now the school must notify the parents before introducing these things, and parents have the option to opt their child out of the lesson.

McMahon said this "is not only a win for religious liberty, but parental rights." //

Moreover, it should be pointed out that Mahmoud v. Taylor was a 6-3 decision that was divided along ideological lines. That we'll have a Supreme Court that isn't ideologically tilted to the left is not guaranteed for the future, so what was decided today effectively needs to be codified into law.

Parental Oversight and Educational Transparency Act (H.R. 1416) is important for just this very reason. //

Too many school districts and even teachers with personal socio-political itches to scratch believe that your child is their sculpting clay and that their authority outweighs the parents when it comes to education. They are wrong about this.

But this is why H.R. 1416 is necessary.

I think too many public school educators and staff forgot that public schools are public institutions, not sovereign kingdoms where students — and even parents to a degree — are their subjects to be ruled over.

Around 03:13 UTC on 21 June (22:13 local time) a flight of US Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft departed Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma. Operating in two flights of four aircraft, the Stratotankers headed northeast toward Missouri. Those aircraft quickly climbed to the top of Flightradar24’s most tracked flights list—not because thousands of people find aerial refueling aircraft over the central US fascinating, but for the inference of their purpose.

..Federal authorities detained more than 70 people during a raid on the Glenn Valley Foods meatpacking plant near 68th and J streets, ICE said in a statement.

The large-scale raid also involved the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and Omaha police, according to the plant’s president. //

When I initially heard about this raid, I thought it was a repeat of that classic dance from the late 90s and early 2000s, but was kind of surprised that a factory owner would be so sanguine about employing illegals in numbers approaching that in this day and age. It didn't seem especially prudent.

I also gave a passing moment to wondering why the feds would be bothering with a plant in the middle of nowhere when surely there were plenty of the first-to-go criminals to be found by the gross in any city they were already working in.

And that was that, until I read a Judicial Watch newsletter this morning, which began to explain exactly HOW an obscure plant out of thousands in the country wound up raided.

It also answered my question about the plant owner's apparent lack of concern. It turns out, as far as he knew, all his employees were kosher by virtue of passing their E-Verify screenings. The plant was 100% compliant with federal regulations for hiring. The workers did so by using stolen identities and Social Security numbers. //

Years after Judicial Watch reported that the government’s system to verify if employees are authorized to work legally in the United States approved hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, federal authorities have uncovered widespread identity theft at a meat processing plant that used the defective tool to screen 100% of its staff. //

What led the feds to raid that plant in particular was a deep, detailed, multi-agency investigation into at least a hundred cases of individual identity theft across the country that - SURPRISE! - all led back to a massive identity theft ring originating in that very plant. //

“These so-called honest workers have caused an immeasurable amount of financial and emotional hardship for innocent Americans. If pretending to be someone you aren’t in order to steal their lives isn’t blatant, criminal dishonesty, I don’t know what is.” //

Agents took hours to meticulously go through and verify everyone's paperwork and authenticate documents. They even allowed workers to return home to retrieve paperwork for other family members or friends who didn't have what they needed with them. This wasn't any inhumane cattle round-up. //

Every seat in the waiting area of Glenn Valley Foods was occupied with people filling out job applications early Thursday afternoon, two days after the meatpacking plant became the center of the largest worksite immigration raid in the state of Nebraska so far this year. //

Min Headroom
a day ago
The canard of the “law abiding undocumented worker” takes another big hit.

By the way, notice that identity theft victims hardest hit are the legal citizens with Hispanic surnames that “look like them?” I bet that’s a demographic already and increasingly disenchanted with the whole “undocumented migrant” thing - and the politicians supporting it. //

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court granted the government's applications to partially stay the district court's nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, noting that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." The caveat here is that the applications are granted "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

The key to the court's decision appears to be summed up thusly:

When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

Additionally, the court has instructed the district courts to "move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."

What is the purpose of immigration policy for any nation? The correct answer is to add to numbers either in general, or in areas of certain aptitudes that are needed to enable a specific, tangible, and quantifiable benefit to the larger society. While feeling and expressing sympathy for people in nations rocked by harsh conditions is noble, it is not a responsible basis for policies related to population growth here. //

In our time, the argument about immigration has ceased entirely from being about what’s good for the nation, and instead focuses on sympathy for those who want to escape the plight of the homelands that they are unable or unwilling to fight to save or improve. This has led to a surge of people who come not to join the American experiment, but to derive the financial and security benefits of the Western tradition while working to subvert it. The mindset gave us people like Ilhan Omar—who said publicly that her top priority is what’s good for Somalia—as a member of Congress, and Zohran Mamdani—whose mother characterized him as “not an Uhmericcan (American) at all”—as the Democrat nominee for NYC mayor. //

The relationship progressives demand of us is very one-sided. This is a breach of trust for America’s citizenry, as those of us here legally are given no choice in the importation of new cultures at odds with our own. Nor are we given a vote when it comes to these new masses being immediately absorbed into taxpayer-funded services. The process is deliberately undemocratic. //

One might have thought that a leftist finally said the quiet part out loud. But they have been saying the quiet part out loud for years with arguments that America needs open borders because we need a class of people to pick tomatoes, clean hotel rooms, and shingle roofs. The implication is that these are menial, unworthy vocations that should be ascribed to those who open borders advocates seem to view as a servant class of humanity. In recent months, it occurred to me that similar arguments were made to justify the chattel slave trade during the first half of American history. Replace the word "tomatoes" with "cotton" and then ask if we’re really more enlightened than our 18th and 19th-century ancestors. There are many indicators—like the abortion trade, the butchering of children for the transgender agenda, and the human sex trafficking trade—that suggest the opposite is true. //

other nations grow food and build structures without importing millions of people from South America. Just as the antebellum South built an economy around slavery, the America of my lifetime built an economy around a class of foreign labor that’s deliberately shuffled into the shadows. That’s the opposite of compassionate.

Our living generations are at a crossroads in America’s history. We inherited a nation of E Pluribus Unum—Out of Many, One. Will we steward that and hand it to our descendants? Or will we falter under the lie that justice demands a nation in which every culture is respected, except the one that birthed and sustained it? The choice is binary. We must reject thinking that reflects chattel-based moral commitments, and stand for an America-first immigration policy that perpetuates the unique greatness of this land to the ordered liberty benefit of all across the fruited plain.

PsychoArs Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
768
Subscriptor

jhodge said:
If your management network is accessible from the Internet, you're doing it wrong.

It needs to be fixed, but this shouldn't be a full-on freakout for most shops.

Yes and no.

If your management network is accessible from your workload network, you're doing it wrong. All it takes is a compromised laptop/desktop/IoT device that's reaching out and lets a bad actor control it. Defense in depth. //

fuzzyfuzzyfungus Ars Legatus Legionis
12y
10,234

PsychoArs said:
Yes and no.

If your management network is accessible from your workload network, you're doing it wrong. All it takes is a compromised laptop/desktop/IoT device that's reaching out and lets a bad actor control it. Defense in depth.

You also probably want 'your management network' to be internally divided to the degree possible. Ideally you'd like all your BMCs to work for you; but if one of them turns out not to you can't necessarily trust the remainder to protect themselves(and for newly added devices that aren't supposed to require hands-on provisioning more or less blind trust in the first thing that talks to you is a feature; so you really, really, want that to be you).

Not every wire can be cut, or you might as well just get an empty shed for much, much, less money; but there is often not much call for any two random devices on the management network to talk to one another, rather than a relative handful of monitoring and provisioning systems talking to otherwise solitary BMCs who have no excuse for knowing about one another. //

Little-Zen Ars Praefectus
24y
3,201
Subscriptor

Deny_Deflect_Disavow said:
“The vulnerability, carrying a severity rating of 10 out of a possible 10, resides in the AMI MegaRAC, a widely used firmware package that allows large fleets of servers to be remotely accessed and managed even when power is unavailable or the operating system isn't functioning.”

I‘m not sure I understand how firmware can be manipulated if electricity is not available or the OS is not functioning. Secondly, these hosts may be physically wired to any network, yet how can a remote execution or procedure call be issued to the server if powered down?

If there's literally no power, like at all, then they aren't accessible, yes. But that's "no power" as in "the whole building's power is out."

If, however, it's just that the server has been powered off but is still plugged in, and the BMC is connected to a network, you can reach it. These are things like Dell iDRAC, HP iLO, Lenovo IMM, etc. They're designed to be always on, and they provide a way to access the server as though you were physically there, including a virtual console that acts like a connected monitor and keyboard, so you can even remotely power on/off a server if necessary. It doesn't use the installed host operating system - thing of it like a remotely accessible BIOS with a ton of other functionality that also lets you see what's happening on the system in real time. You can even virtually mount ISOs to remotely install an operating system.

It is extremely convenient and I'm sure anyone here who has worked in IT has stories about how iDRAC saved their life at one point or another. I certainly have a few.

However, I can also say - when I was managing servers, all my BMCs were connected to an isolated VLAN, in-building only accessible from another isolated VLAN and to only a very specific set of users with separate logins used solely for interacting with devices on the management network, and remotely over a VPN that only allowed that very specific set of users to access a jump box, which itself was accessible only with the separate management network logins.

You absolutely want to isolate and protect these interfaces specifically because of vulnerabilities like this one.

symbolset Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
12y
116
If you let any vendor be essential to your operation, they will blackmail you or they will go out of business and leave you inoperable. That is the nature of the essential dependency relationship. You can't shut them down, can you? No.

This very thing is both the reason for Unix and the thing that killed it. Mainframe lockin being what it is. People got tired of rebuilding everything and demanded portability. And then AT&T exploited their need for Unix.

Sure, their software is convenient. It's useful. But you have to be ready to unhook from any vendor instantly without disrupting your operation. That's inconvenient. It's expensive. It's necessary. If a vendor controls whether you could continue in business, they own your business. You work for them. You wouldn't allow that from any employee, a security contractor, a landlord, an Internet service, an accountant, an engineer, tech or manager. If your CEO goes rogue or dies in the chair you get another and move on. Why should a software vendor have this privilege above all others? There's always another way to do anything. For everything essential responsible people always have a hot spare, a workaround, a plan B. Always

This is also useful when going into negotiations. The one who cares the least controls the relationship.