The manufacturing plants likely dont generate their own electricity with their own panels, so your argument is irrelevant. Do you have reason to believe they do?
Youre doing it wrong. You can configure the sonicwall to block all 443 stuff, though for it to work "well" you need to install a root certificate on all your machines (so the sonicwall can essentially MITM your SSL connections).
You do realize that SSL is DESIGNED to be impossible to subvert the way sonicwall wants to without throwing cert warnings, right? Sonicwall cant just change how the system works simply cause theyre a gateway.
Ive used pfSense, and in a lot of ways I prefer it over sonicwall.
But youre ignorant if you think it is superior in every way. For one, it is a LOT more buggy, especially when it comes to IPsec VPN (a single cisco client attempting to connect will completely lock up the racoon daemon-- thats REAL secure). For another, the IDS, AV, and filtering options in pfSense are, being generous, "ghetto". Snort is broken every other patch (was in utter shambles until recently), clam-av filtering is mediocre, and theres no integration with the big-boy web filters (like websense).
Theres also the fact that, except under rare circumstances, you can be pretty sure an upgrade isnt going to hose your configuration.
Its nice that its free and does ACTUAL stateful filtering (it will block acks that egress out a different interface than the syn came in on), and that its configuration is a gigantic XML file, but there ARE reasons to use Sonicwall.
And a lot of these problems arent problems with pfSense, but with the state of BSD filtering and daemons. Having issues with IPsec connections to your BSD box? Whoops, theres noone to contact for support (tho pfSense itself does have excellent paid support).
At least according to the national CVE database, they dont seem to be that bad vulnerability wise. As another poster said, show us these vulnerabilities that you "saw" (what are you, neo? You can "see" the vulnerabilities?)
Theres a difference between being able earn a living that supports your internet use, and having a drug addiction that you cannot financially support and is actually keeping you in poverty.
Can you really not see the difference, or are you just trying for humor?
Most evangelicals end up being on the right; part of thinking that all men are fallen and naturally evil is thinking that government isnt the solution to all problems and is itself subject to our corrupting influence.
It also doesnt help that the left generally aligns itself with the pro-abortion side of things, while most evangelicals tend to be distinctly anti-abortion, and see it as an issue of utmost importance.
By the way, the rest of your post indicates you have no inkling as to how actual shelters work. There isnt a board of directors, and theyre generally not for profit.
Im not sure what you googled but it doesnt sound like a shelter.
All this, while one is expected to be looking for work and permanent housing.
So, in order to get charity housing, board, care, etc, the "clientele" is expected to put forth a good-faith effort to try to rebuild their life? OH THE HORROR.
Thats EXACTLY why I want private entities doing shelters: because after a while, limited funding means that you cant let yourself get taken advantage of by people who truly dont care; you need to try to limit your services to those who will use them.
The point of charity like that isnt to give someone a free ride through life just because they are unwilling to put any effort forth; its to provide relief to those in NEED. If Joe wants to keep coming to the shelter as a hideout after selling drugs and shows no indication that he wants to get cleaned up, I absolutely think the time has to come where he is denied entry; charity is unfortunately not an unlimited resource.
Giving change I think is the WRONG sort of help. There are homeless people Im sure who would use the money well, but it seems like a self defeating proposition, not to mention dangerous:
* the more successful panhandling is, the more dishonest panhandlers there will be * it cannot be ignored that there are many homeless people who are homeless because of drugs; in that case you would only be worsening the problem * it could well be an attempt to get you to pull out your wallet for a quick mugging (they might not even be homeless)
If you want to help someone in a real, immediate way, and you are in a city, theres a good chance there is a diner or fast food place nearby. Invite them to lunch, get some coffee, whatever. This will address a real need, and it will be a heck of a lot safer (as youre in a highly visible place). If you have the time, sit and chat with them, as it may have been some time since someone actually talked with them.
Throwing money at them seems like a lazy, counterproductive way to address the issue.
You get modded informative for an incorrect, stereotypical, insulting generalization of "right-wingers"?
I suppose I should be kicked out of the party for actually caring about homeless people. I imagine all those other evangelical charities, missions, etc should as well, since clearly they all view homeless people as rubbish.
The best thing about Pwn2Own is that it can be a shot of reality for anyone who gets overly confident in how awesome their favorite OS or browser is. Im a huge fan of Chrome and was hoping it would stand up without any 0-days, but its great that Pwn2Own brought to light the reality that there is no "secure web browsing experience" outside of Lynx (and Im willing to bet that could be 0-day'd too).
The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.
So no, it would depend on whether you are doing drinks or foods. I should have clarified that there are multiple ratios.
There is also a 90% fructose mix, but wikipedia claims its basically only used for mixing into the other two formulations.
The reason Guantanamo is so controversial is that people are asserting that such detentions are illegal (though theyre not the simple cases of "civil unrest" I was talking about).
In china, such detentions-- for any reason at all-- are legal.
If you cannot see the difference, you lack perspective.
Well, next time your in Germany having a heated discussion about the state of human rights in current day Germany, be sure to let them all know that theyre Jew killers. Im sure that will win you the discussion.
Cause thats essentially what youre doing. Youre pointing to a historical issue and claiming that its a current human rights issue.
If youre spending years drinking several beverages a day each containing 1/13 lbs of sugar (~34g sugar, 450g per lb), yea, its not going to do your health any wonders. Trying to claim that the problem is caffeine or HFCS specifically (as opposed to excess sugar in general) is just ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright has nothing to do with the case, or with your hypothetical situation.
Trademark might be applicable, except that a person's name is hardly "commercial".
The manufacturing plants likely dont generate their own electricity with their own panels, so your argument is irrelevant. Do you have reason to believe they do?
At the same time, the Chinese claim that theyre doing it "for the planet" takes some serious chutzpah. I laughed a little when I read that.
Youre doing it wrong. You can configure the sonicwall to block all 443 stuff, though for it to work "well" you need to install a root certificate on all your machines (so the sonicwall can essentially MITM your SSL connections).
You do realize that SSL is DESIGNED to be impossible to subvert the way sonicwall wants to without throwing cert warnings, right? Sonicwall cant just change how the system works simply cause theyre a gateway.
Ive used pfSense, and in a lot of ways I prefer it over sonicwall.
But youre ignorant if you think it is superior in every way. For one, it is a LOT more buggy, especially when it comes to IPsec VPN (a single cisco client attempting to connect will completely lock up the racoon daemon-- thats REAL secure). For another, the IDS, AV, and filtering options in pfSense are, being generous, "ghetto". Snort is broken every other patch (was in utter shambles until recently), clam-av filtering is mediocre, and theres no integration with the big-boy web filters (like websense).
Theres also the fact that, except under rare circumstances, you can be pretty sure an upgrade isnt going to hose your configuration.
Its nice that its free and does ACTUAL stateful filtering (it will block acks that egress out a different interface than the syn came in on), and that its configuration is a gigantic XML file, but there ARE reasons to use Sonicwall.
And a lot of these problems arent problems with pfSense, but with the state of BSD filtering and daemons. Having issues with IPsec connections to your BSD box? Whoops, theres noone to contact for support (tho pfSense itself does have excellent paid support).
At least according to the national CVE database, they dont seem to be that bad vulnerability wise. As another poster said, show us these vulnerabilities that you "saw" (what are you, neo? You can "see" the vulnerabilities?)
Theres a difference between being able earn a living that supports your internet use, and having a drug addiction that you cannot financially support and is actually keeping you in poverty.
Can you really not see the difference, or are you just trying for humor?
Most evangelicals end up being on the right; part of thinking that all men are fallen and naturally evil is thinking that government isnt the solution to all problems and is itself subject to our corrupting influence.
It also doesnt help that the left generally aligns itself with the pro-abortion side of things, while most evangelicals tend to be distinctly anti-abortion, and see it as an issue of utmost importance.
By the way, the rest of your post indicates you have no inkling as to how actual shelters work. There isnt a board of directors, and theyre generally not for profit.
Im not sure what you googled but it doesnt sound like a shelter.
All this, while one is expected to be looking for work and permanent housing.
So, in order to get charity housing, board, care, etc, the "clientele" is expected to put forth a good-faith effort to try to rebuild their life? OH THE HORROR.
Thats EXACTLY why I want private entities doing shelters: because after a while, limited funding means that you cant let yourself get taken advantage of by people who truly dont care; you need to try to limit your services to those who will use them.
The point of charity like that isnt to give someone a free ride through life just because they are unwilling to put any effort forth; its to provide relief to those in NEED. If Joe wants to keep coming to the shelter as a hideout after selling drugs and shows no indication that he wants to get cleaned up, I absolutely think the time has to come where he is denied entry; charity is unfortunately not an unlimited resource.
If there are contact details on there and it is trivial to contact the owner, its not much different than stealing; the differences are all details.
Likewise, watching someone get murdered may not technically be murder, but it sure doesnt make you a nice character.
Yes.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Do the shelters where you're from generally turn away the homeless because theyre not providing enough revenue?
And he explained *exactly* why God-less liberals like you (and your ideas) are ruining this great country.
Good try, but Im an evangelical christian, and a republican. Im not exactly what you would call "liberal".
You do realize it is possible to care about the poor without thinking that government money is the solution to poverty, right?
Giving change I think is the WRONG sort of help. There are homeless people Im sure who would use the money well, but it seems like a self defeating proposition, not to mention dangerous:
* the more successful panhandling is, the more dishonest panhandlers there will be
* it cannot be ignored that there are many homeless people who are homeless because of drugs; in that case you would only be worsening the problem
* it could well be an attempt to get you to pull out your wallet for a quick mugging (they might not even be homeless)
If you want to help someone in a real, immediate way, and you are in a city, theres a good chance there is a diner or fast food place nearby. Invite them to lunch, get some coffee, whatever. This will address a real need, and it will be a heck of a lot safer (as youre in a highly visible place). If you have the time, sit and chat with them, as it may have been some time since someone actually talked with them.
Throwing money at them seems like a lazy, counterproductive way to address the issue.
You get modded informative for an incorrect, stereotypical, insulting generalization of "right-wingers"?
I suppose I should be kicked out of the party for actually caring about homeless people. I imagine all those other evangelical charities, missions, etc should as well, since clearly they all view homeless people as rubbish.
All GP seemed to imply is that there is a high chance at least some of those people would be willing to sell the equipment.
I dont think he said that all homeless people are criminals.
Since when is doing something voluntarily with no coercion or pressure "slavery"?
I mean, if any of these people find the shirts oppressive and unbearable I imagine they could, you know, refuse to wear them.
Shhh, apparently its OK to be hateful-- only so long as its against people with differing RELIGIOUS beliefs.
The best thing about Pwn2Own is that it can be a shot of reality for anyone who gets overly confident in how awesome their favorite OS or browser is. Im a huge fan of Chrome and was hoping it would stand up without any 0-days, but its great that Pwn2Own brought to light the reality that there is no "secure web browsing experience" outside of Lynx (and Im willing to bet that could be 0-day'd too).
Oh for goodness sakes, they have HELMETS. Theyll be fine, quit exaggerating.
To quote wikipedia,
The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.
So no, it would depend on whether you are doing drinks or foods. I should have clarified that there are multiple ratios.
There is also a 90% fructose mix, but wikipedia claims its basically only used for mixing into the other two formulations.
The reason Guantanamo is so controversial is that people are asserting that such detentions are illegal (though theyre not the simple cases of "civil unrest" I was talking about).
In china, such detentions-- for any reason at all-- are legal.
If you cannot see the difference, you lack perspective.
Well, next time your in Germany having a heated discussion about the state of human rights in current day Germany, be sure to let them all know that theyre Jew killers. Im sure that will win you the discussion.
Cause thats essentially what youre doing. Youre pointing to a historical issue and claiming that its a current human rights issue.
That first link was supposed to go to wikipedia, not to a hilarious prop 65 sign.
Actual sucrose link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
If youre spending years drinking several beverages a day each containing 1/13 lbs of sugar (~34g sugar, 450g per lb), yea, its not going to do your health any wonders. Trying to claim that the problem is caffeine or HFCS specifically (as opposed to excess sugar in general) is just ridiculous.