Oh and if it hits a satellite, it can be deflected ANY direction depending on where it gets hit. Well, not quite. It can't be deflected in the direction it is traveling and it will lose some energy. Losing a tiny bit of momentum over a 7 year trip could make quite a bit of difference, I would think. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe the argument--I don't read German and orbital mechanics isn't my field so I need more information to reach a reasonable conclusion--I'm just saying that if in fact the reason that it was not likely to hit was that it was moving a little too fast, then it may just be possible that slowing it down a tiny bit could dramatically increase the probability of it colliding with the Earth.
Eh, who knows.
Re:Yes, Yes, and it does... (Buried Lede?)
on
Wireshark 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Now come on! What sort of a lede is that? Just a tease and no candy? What does Wireshark 1.0 DO for pete's sake?
A quick read: "Network protocol analyzer for Windows and Unix that allows examination of data from a live network, or from a capture file on disk." Basically it is tcpdump with a GUI. That is kind of like saying a bulldozer is like a shovel, but yellow.
I grew up reading science fiction and was always one of the 'smart' kids that enjoyed science, math, and other geeky things. In an environment where kids who were good at sports (which I actually was, at the time) were the ones that were considered 'cool', Real Genius helped me imagine places where you could be considered cool for your intelligence as well. So, here I am, a boy somewhere around 10 years old, who can excel at the the physical stuff and fit in if I want, but I really enjoy the scholastic side of things a lot more. I honestly think that Real Genius made me more comfortable with my inner-geek. I thought of Chris Knight as a hero and aspired to be a socially well-adjusted geek instead of a jock or a living-in-moms-basement kind of geek. I also think I kind of imprinted on being attracted to geek girls because of this movie.:-)
All in all it is a very enjoyable movie--quite funny, with a lot of memorable quotes.
All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. Had we concentrated our funds on adult stem cell research, we might be even further ahead.
Gee, do you think that the adult side being more productive currently might be because funding has been severely limited on the embryonic side? Of course the option with the most funding has an easier time being developed. Jesus, funding has been concentrated on adult stem cell research! There is almost no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that the embryos that would be used for embryonic stem cell research are just being thrown away! No one is going to outlaw IVF because it would be just about impossible to get a law passed forbidding couples that desperately want to have a child the option of IVF. So the embryos are going to be there no matter what. Why not use them? Forbidding embryonic stem cell research in no way shape or form "saves babies". And you have the nerve to decry people "emotionally manipulating the process" with their tear-jerking testimony? BULLSHIT!
Imagine the difference between a flexible medium with a twist, such as a piece of paper. Now cut it like he does in this video. Notice how when he cuts it, the twist moves. He never cuts the twist in half and the result is a single large twisted ring of paper. Now imagine something shaped like a mobius strip in a fixed medium, such as wood, that has no spring force that keeps the twist moving away from your scissors. You would eventually get to the stationary part that looked like a twist and when cutting you would just cut that part in half. You would end up with two separate pieces. See? It isn't a mobius strip without a real twist with a spring force.
Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician and I do not play one on TV. This is just the result of a thought experiment that I undertook after reading your question. I'd never really thought about it before. Answers from a real mathematician may vary.:-)
Ah, but WiFI is becomming more and more ubiquitous. VoIP on your smart phone (the Nokia E61 has WiFI and a SIP client built in) and a metropolitan wireless internet account would be *very* bad for cell phone companies...
I think your comment, again while mostly accurate, is more reflective of the old maxim: "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
I think that the definitions keep changing, but the people don't. Perhaps the views you had when you were twenty were quite liberal for the time, but by the time you are forty they are actually quite conservative when compared to those held by twenty year olds.
I'm guessing that he is trying to fit something into their existing environment, which seems to be a Linux shop. Migrating a department to a different application after support is dropped for their platform seems a little more reasonable than migrating a department to a different platform than the other departments and having to support both environments or (gasp!) migrating everyone to a different OS for one app.
Charging interest is also not allowed for Jews/Christians according to their holy books as well. For example:
If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:24])
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus, 25:35-37)
Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:19-20)
he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true justice between man and man, hath walked in My statutes, and hath kept Mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.... [And he that] hath given forth upon interest, and hath taken increase; shall he then live? he shall not live--he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him.... [And he] that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed Mine ordinances, hath walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. (Ezekiel 18:8-9, 13, 17)
In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken interest and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by oppression, and hast forgotten Me, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)
Then I consulted with myself, and contended with the nobles and the rulers, and said unto them: 'Ye lend upon pledge, every one to his brother.' And I held a great assembly against them.... And I likewise, my brethren and my servants, have lent them money and corn. I pray you, let us leave off this exaction. (Nehemiah 5:7, 10)
He that putteth not out his money on interest, nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15:5)
Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked. (Luke 6:35)
It's amazing how commandments that affect ones own pocketbook are frequently ignored, while ones that allow people to look down upon others tend to be very popular.
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Or more likely 'joe' is a reference to joe, Joe's Own Editor, which has been around since the late eighties. In fact I used it exclusively back when Slackware was distributed on floppies--my temp files were always named bob so I could type 'joe bob' to edit them. Of course this was before I "did the right thing" and switched to vi.:-)
Come on, you have to admit that Fox didn't really give Firefly a fair shake...showing things out of order, changing it's time slot around and what have you. I would be really surprised if it wasn't capable of generating "more interest".
That said, there is absolutely no way for me to be impartial when it comes to Firefly. I really loved that show. Hell, I'm not one to get caught up in flights of fancy, but I loved the characters--I actually cried a bit when one of the main characters died. It actually mattered to me that I wouldn't ever see the character again. A fictional character! I kind of laughed at myself for it because it seems so...silly. But, I actually felt a real sense of loss. I haven't ever experienced that kind of thing before (with a fictional character), so it just seems weird to me that other people, given the chance, couldn't have found something in it to love as well. Oh, well. Enough rambling from me.
During the decryption process, wouldn't it be possible to write something that dumps the decrypted data from memory? I think this is how QTFairUse worked, isn't it?
Congress cannot by law take a power of another branch of the government thats guaranteed by the constitution. If so they could make a law with a rider that the courts cannot consider the constitutionality of it.
This is true, but it didn't stop them from trying to do exactly what you suggest. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which was pushed through with the Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, tried to take powers that were reserved for the Judicial branch and hand them over to the Executive. For one thing, although the Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties, the power to interpret them lies with the Supreme Court. Both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 make the claim that the President appoints a group to decide if someone is an unlawful enemy combatant and thus capable of receiving Geneva Conventions protections. It is the role of the courts to decide this, not the President. If you read the MCA, the definition of enemy combatant basically says an unlawful enemy combatant is someone who is normally defined as an unlawful enemy combatant, or is deemed one by a tribunal authorized by the president. It then goes on to say that these people can not challenge their captivity by revoking habeas corpus. This is clearly not a power that the President has been given in the Constitution, nor is it the right of Congress to decide what the Judiciary can decide.
So the answer is yes, in peace times wiretapping most citizens under most circumstances are illegal. Of course there are provisions that allow it to happen without a warrant but certain other procedures need to follow. Now as the president claims, according to the constitution, he has broader powers when the country is under threat and those powers allow him to bypass a law that congress wrote.
The constitution does give Congress the right to make laws--even laws that apply to the President. There are provisions for when the President, through the Attorney General, can obtain electronic surveillance in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--specifically this section which states that the electronic surveillance should be limited to communications exclusively between or among foreign powers and that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is party." This section specifically allows the President to gather electronic surveillance without a court order "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." Of course, congress has not made a declaration of war since WW2.
I suggest reading the constitution very carefully looking for anything that gives the President any extra powers during wartime. You won't find anything because it isn't there. The U.S. Constitution contains no "emergency power" clauses for the President.
Again- vongress [sic] cannot make a law that limits the constitutional power of another branch of government. If what the president says is true, then no law was broken.
As I've shown above, the Constitution gives the power to Congress to make laws (which with FISA they did), and gives the President no special powers in time of war to break those laws, therefore if the President is saying otherwise, it is incorrect and the law was broken.
No, the constitution -the same thing giving congress powers to make the laws you think the preside
As far as I know, It hasn't been proved to be illegal. My understanding is that it is part of the presidents constitutional authority as he claims. And innocent civilian not suspected of a crime? My understanding here is that they were listening in on the US side of international calls to and from known terrorist. I would hardly think talking to a known terrorist was innocent whether the person knew he was a terrorist or not.
Domestic wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. Also they weren't limiting the wiretaps to conversations with known 'terrorists'.
Umm. I don't think this is anything new. It just needed to be enacted in law because some people in the country want the terrorist to win. Of course we shouldn't draw lines in the sand on who voted for the suspension of habeas corpus. It has no bearing on whether or not you want America to win or lose.
Let me ask you, do you want us to win or lose? Or do you care?
Of course it is something new. There was this document called the Geneva Conventions that outlined how prisoners of war were to be treated. We completely disregard it (the act says that the prisoners are not allowed to make any claims to Geneva rights). And I'm sorry... win what again? What are we winning in Iraq? The contest to see who can help create the most new terrorists? The only way to stop a loosely organized geographically dispersed group of terrorists from continuing to exist is to either 1) Make a police state where no individual has any privacy or freedom or 2) dry out their recruitment base. I am not willing to live in a police state and killing peoples brothers, sisters, wives, mothers, and fathers sure as hell isn't the way to do the latter.
Noble was the knights of king Arthur. Maybe you should goto england if it bothers you that much?
First, I was responding to the parent of my comment who said that he thought our goal was noble in Irag. Second, I hope that people behaving with honor and dignity (in other words, nobly) is not only permissible to long-dead knights in England. Finally, if everyone who wanted to fix what was wrong moved, things could never get better.
Iraq has never been a threat to the U.S. militarily. They have never attacked the U.S. homeland, and when they took pot shots at our planes we bombed the hell out of them in retaliation. Again, there was no reason for us to invade this time in the first place. No WMDs, no terrorism link, nothing. But we sure as hell are going to help swell the roles of the would-be terrorists of tomorrow.
Ok, I'm going to try to respond to this point by point. The principles that we were founded on included NOT forcing ones principles on another. Spreading democracy through force on another directly violates those principles. It is not a question of being more deserving, that is ridiculous. As far as your racism argument goes, you are completely ignoring the tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died as a direct result of our actions. That is *significantly* more deaths than Saddam has been convicted of. Not to mention, that the U.S. government has just taken his place in the disappearing people department. It's almost like the Salem witch trials--if you don't like your neighbor, then just accuse them of being a terrorist. They might just disappear! For crying out loud! Are you really decrying Saddam disappearing people in one breath and supporting us doing it in another?!
Arguing that "liberals" only care about U.S. troop deaths is disingenuous at best (as is the comment about liberals thinking Saddam was a saint who built lots of playgrounds) First, "liberals" tend to care about all people and think preemptive war is a bad thing. War is messy, lots of innocent people are killed, and it should be avoided when possible. Second, I would hope that it isn't just "liberals" who care about the deaths of innocent civilians.
I rant because I feel very strongly about the way the country has headed and I want to fix it. I don't normally get this way, but after the Military Commissions Act (try reading it sometime, it really is a bit scary--unless you just assume that everyone is guilty) passed I just felt that I couldn't sit back and take it anymore. I respect your right to hold and express your opinion, as I assume you respect my right to hold and express mine. But, when opinions become matters of policy, it would be wrong for me (in my opinion) to remain quiet about something that I felt was a grave injustice. I just can't believe that the best way to remove an "evil dictator" (who we put in power in the first place) is to take his place and assume his tactics.
How noble it was to start a war with a country that was no threat to us. How noble of the current administration to illegaly spy on innocent U.S. citizens who aren't even suspected of a crime. How noble to ship un-tried prisoners to secret prisons to be tortured. How noble to pass legislation to allow the indefinite imprisonment of un-tried people who are defined as enemy combatants by the president. HOW...FUCKING...NOBLE. If we were any more noble, I just don't know what we would do with ourselves.
I normally try to avoid ranting, but these last few years have just been eating away at me--and I was once a pretty staunch Republican. I just don't understand how a country that was founded on such great principles could fall so far. What have we allowed to be done in our names?
Not only that, but it IP seems to be the only thing the U.S. is really good at exporting. It's such a good idea to have a significant portion of your countries earning potential be based on charging for things for which duplication costs are essentially non-existent and protection of said business is done solely by the laws of the countries you are exporting to--which you can only influence through intimidation.
I never understood the anti-French thing. All they did was refuse to back a (now discredited) war & all of a sudden they're "Cheese eating surrender-monkeys" when they fought very valiantly in WW1, 2 and Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu anyone?) long before the Americans could get up off their isolationist butts & join in.
I hate to say this, but when it comes to going to war, I think I prefer isolationism to the current policy of pre-emptive war. Maybe. It's a tough call--lots of death either way. If only there were some kind of international organization that we could join that tried to emphasize diplomacy over invasion...
Lets say you have a Linux iptables firewall that does connection tracking. You allow all outbound connections, but inbound connections must be ESTABLISHED or RELATED. iptables is maintaining state there. Lets say you use keepalived for failover between two firewalls (one that is sitting there as a hot spare). In the event the first firewall crashes and you fail over with keepalived, the state information iptables tracks on the connection is gone, therefore the inbound media that you were streaming would no longer be ESTABLISHED or RELATED unless the client made another outbound connection. If I understand the parent to your comment, OpenBSD's pf has the ability to track connection state between the failover boxes, thus eliminating this problem. See this.
Slashdot Mirror
I grew up reading science fiction and was always one of the 'smart' kids that enjoyed science, math, and other geeky things. In an environment where kids who were good at sports (which I actually was, at the time) were the ones that were considered 'cool', Real Genius helped me imagine places where you could be considered cool for your intelligence as well. So, here I am, a boy somewhere around 10 years old, who can excel at the the physical stuff and fit in if I want, but I really enjoy the scholastic side of things a lot more. I honestly think that Real Genius made me more comfortable with my inner-geek. I thought of Chris Knight as a hero and aspired to be a socially well-adjusted geek instead of a jock or a living-in-moms-basement kind of geek. I also think I kind of imprinted on being attracted to geek girls because of this movie. :-)
All in all it is a very enjoyable movie--quite funny, with a lot of memorable quotes.
I don't know--I thought it was a Joule.
Me: Damn it! Get out of my way! Learn to drive. ARGH!!!!
Robot: Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays...
Firey explosion ensues from ramming the car into a tree to make it all stop.
Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician and I do not play one on TV. This is just the result of a thought experiment that I undertook after reading your question. I'd never really thought about it before. Answers from a real mathematician may vary. :-)
"If any of that sounded like work, I'll do some more of it next week.." --Wally
Ok, I admit 'closer to becoming ubiquitous' would have been more better. ;-)
Ah, but WiFI is becomming more and more ubiquitous. VoIP on your smart phone (the Nokia E61 has WiFI and a SIP client built in) and a metropolitan wireless internet account would be *very* bad for cell phone companies...
If by "decide who gets health care", you mean "decides that everyone should get health care", then yes.
I think that the definitions keep changing, but the people don't. Perhaps the views you had when you were twenty were quite liberal for the time, but by the time you are forty they are actually quite conservative when compared to those held by twenty year olds.
I'm guessing that he is trying to fit something into their existing environment, which seems to be a Linux shop. Migrating a department to a different application after support is dropped for their platform seems a little more reasonable than migrating a department to a different platform than the other departments and having to support both environments or (gasp!) migrating everyone to a different OS for one app.
Or more likely 'joe' is a reference to joe, Joe's Own Editor, which has been around since the late eighties. In fact I used it exclusively back when Slackware was distributed on floppies--my temp files were always named bob so I could type 'joe bob' to edit them. Of course this was before I "did the right thing" and switched to vi. :-)
Come on, you have to admit that Fox didn't really give Firefly a fair shake...showing things out of order, changing it's time slot around and what have you. I would be really surprised if it wasn't capable of generating "more interest".
That said, there is absolutely no way for me to be impartial when it comes to Firefly. I really loved that show. Hell, I'm not one to get caught up in flights of fancy, but I loved the characters--I actually cried a bit when one of the main characters died. It actually mattered to me that I wouldn't ever see the character again. A fictional character! I kind of laughed at myself for it because it seems so...silly. But, I actually felt a real sense of loss. I haven't ever experienced that kind of thing before (with a fictional character), so it just seems weird to me that other people, given the chance, couldn't have found something in it to love as well. Oh, well. Enough rambling from me.
During the decryption process, wouldn't it be possible to write something that dumps the decrypted data from memory? I think this is how QTFairUse worked, isn't it?
This is true, but it didn't stop them from trying to do exactly what you suggest. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which was pushed through with the Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, tried to take powers that were reserved for the Judicial branch and hand them over to the Executive. For one thing, although the Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties, the power to interpret them lies with the Supreme Court. Both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 make the claim that the President appoints a group to decide if someone is an unlawful enemy combatant and thus capable of receiving Geneva Conventions protections. It is the role of the courts to decide this, not the President. If you read the MCA, the definition of enemy combatant basically says an unlawful enemy combatant is someone who is normally defined as an unlawful enemy combatant, or is deemed one by a tribunal authorized by the president. It then goes on to say that these people can not challenge their captivity by revoking habeas corpus. This is clearly not a power that the President has been given in the Constitution, nor is it the right of Congress to decide what the Judiciary can decide.
The constitution does give Congress the right to make laws--even laws that apply to the President. There are provisions for when the President, through the Attorney General, can obtain electronic surveillance in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--specifically this section which states that the electronic surveillance should be limited to communications exclusively between or among foreign powers and that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is party." This section specifically allows the President to gather electronic surveillance without a court order "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." Of course, congress has not made a declaration of war since WW2.
I suggest reading the constitution very carefully looking for anything that gives the President any extra powers during wartime. You won't find anything because it isn't there. The U.S. Constitution contains no "emergency power" clauses for the President.
As I've shown above, the Constitution gives the power to Congress to make laws (which with FISA they did), and gives the President no special powers in time of war to break those laws, therefore if the President is saying otherwise, it is incorrect and the law was broken.
Domestic wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. Also they weren't limiting the wiretaps to conversations with known 'terrorists'.
Of course it is something new. There was this document called the Geneva Conventions that outlined how prisoners of war were to be treated. We completely disregard it (the act says that the prisoners are not allowed to make any claims to Geneva rights). And I'm sorry... win what again? What are we winning in Iraq? The contest to see who can help create the most new terrorists? The only way to stop a loosely organized geographically dispersed group of terrorists from continuing to exist is to either 1) Make a police state where no individual has any privacy or freedom or 2) dry out their recruitment base. I am not willing to live in a police state and killing peoples brothers, sisters, wives, mothers, and fathers sure as hell isn't the way to do the latter.
First, I was responding to the parent of my comment who said that he thought our goal was noble in Irag. Second, I hope that people behaving with honor and dignity (in other words, nobly) is not only permissible to long-dead knights in England. Finally, if everyone who wanted to fix what was wrong moved, things could never get better.
Iraq has never been a threat to the U.S. militarily. They have never attacked the U.S. homeland, and when they took pot shots at our planes we bombed the hell out of them in retaliation. Again, there was no reason for us to invade this time in the first place. No WMDs, no terrorism link, nothing. But we sure as hell are going to help swell the roles of the would-be terrorists of tomorrow.
Ok, I'm going to try to respond to this point by point. The principles that we were founded on included NOT forcing ones principles on another. Spreading democracy through force on another directly violates those principles. It is not a question of being more deserving, that is ridiculous.
As far as your racism argument goes, you are completely ignoring the tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died as a direct result of our actions. That is *significantly* more deaths than Saddam has been convicted of. Not to mention, that the U.S. government has just taken his place in the disappearing people department. It's almost like the Salem witch trials--if you don't like your neighbor, then just accuse them of being a terrorist. They might just disappear! For crying out loud! Are you really decrying Saddam disappearing people in one breath and supporting us doing it in another?!
Arguing that "liberals" only care about U.S. troop deaths is disingenuous at best (as is the comment about liberals thinking Saddam was a saint who built lots of playgrounds) First, "liberals" tend to care about all people and think preemptive war is a bad thing. War is messy, lots of innocent people are killed, and it should be avoided when possible. Second, I would hope that it isn't just "liberals" who care about the deaths of innocent civilians.
I rant because I feel very strongly about the way the country has headed and I want to fix it. I don't normally get this way, but after the Military Commissions Act (try reading it sometime, it really is a bit scary--unless you just assume that everyone is guilty) passed I just felt that I couldn't sit back and take it anymore. I respect your right to hold and express your opinion, as I assume you respect my right to hold and express mine. But, when opinions become matters of policy, it would be wrong for me (in my opinion) to remain quiet about something that I felt was a grave injustice. I just can't believe that the best way to remove an "evil dictator" (who we put in power in the first place) is to take his place and assume his tactics.
How noble it was to start a war with a country that was no threat to us. How noble of the current administration to illegaly spy on innocent U.S. citizens who aren't even suspected of a crime. How noble to ship un-tried prisoners to secret prisons to be tortured. How noble to pass legislation to allow the indefinite imprisonment of un-tried people who are defined as enemy combatants by the president. HOW...FUCKING...NOBLE. If we were any more noble, I just don't know what we would do with ourselves.
I normally try to avoid ranting, but these last few years have just been eating away at me--and I was once a pretty staunch Republican. I just don't understand how a country that was founded on such great principles could fall so far. What have we allowed to be done in our names?
Not only that, but it IP seems to be the only thing the U.S. is really good at exporting. It's such a good idea to have a significant portion of your countries earning potential be based on charging for things for which duplication costs are essentially non-existent and protection of said business is done solely by the laws of the countries you are exporting to--which you can only influence through intimidation.
Lets say you have a Linux iptables firewall that does connection tracking. You allow all outbound connections, but inbound connections must be ESTABLISHED or RELATED. iptables is maintaining state there. Lets say you use keepalived for failover between two firewalls (one that is sitting there as a hot spare). In the event the first firewall crashes and you fail over with keepalived, the state information iptables tracks on the connection is gone, therefore the inbound media that you were streaming would no longer be ESTABLISHED or RELATED unless the client made another outbound connection. If I understand the parent to your comment, OpenBSD's pf has the ability to track connection state between the failover boxes, thus eliminating this problem. See this.