Designing a wireless / wired network to support unsecured guests is a LOT different than designing one to support only secured guests.
AND it requires that all the PREVIOUS systems not have problems with the design.
The network admin has to support ALL the systems. Not just your pet.
What happens when the corporate database IS accessible from the corporate wifi because other apps need that access and those apps are run by people on wifi?
Remember that the network switches / hubs / routers are part of "the network".
So when there REALLY is a problem on the network, the network admins usually hear about it because EVERYONE is having problems with ALL of their apps.
If one workstation or one server is having a problem (but the others are working) then it probably isn't a problem with "the network".
It may be that the network is not configured the way you'd like it to be for whatever you're trying to do... but remember that the network admins have to keep the network configured to support all the OTHER items that were on it before yours.
At least be able to tell them what you want to do protocol-wise.
If I ask a contractor to assess my foundation and he tells me that my water heater is busted, do I owe him money if I later replace the heater?
Legally, that would depend upon the specific wording of the contract you signed with him.
Ethically, if he found a flaw that you did not know about and told you about it in a manner that allowed you to save money by fixing it before it got worse, then yes, you do owe him.
If you have a single web server with no remote administration capabilities or logs then you don't need a firewall.
I surf the 'web from my Ubuntu box without a firewall.
But using a firewall means that you split the functionality between 2 devices. Each, ideally, customized to be better at its specific task.
Do I want remote admin capabilities but only from my private network? A firewall with a DMZ makes that easy.
Do I want to log all access but not risk those logs should the web server be cracked? A firewall makes that easy.
And even the "cheap" Cisco firewalls can easily handle any inbound traffic that the average user is likely to face.
I don't agree with the "expert" in that story. I'd say that using a firewall is a good idea. But ONLY using a firewall (bad server admin or not defense in depth) is the problem.
You still aren't grasping the basic facts of the issue here - teaching evolution, no matter how correct or factual it is, can still get teachers into a lot of shit. Why should they be forced to take that shit for you?
They aren't "forced" to.
They can find another job.
But if they aren't teaching evolution, then they aren't teaching biology.
If they're paid to teach biology, then they're responsible for teaching evolution.
It would seem that it is better to employ numerous individuals who each have possibly inadequate tools rather than a few with exceptional training and/or equipment -- above all, everyone's got a job, even if that job is next to mindless and minuscule, something that would never exist in the west.
When you think about it, it makes sense. They have lots of people. It's more cost efficient to use man-power for most tasks than it is to train one person in specialized equipment.
You get lots of people working and the maintenance costs are almost zero. People at a construction site were moving materials around in a wheelbarrow made of old bicycle wheels (one without a tire).
How much would it cost to fix that wheelbarrow when it broke? Now compare that to fixing a forklift.
Meanwhile, they all have jobs and are getting paid and can buy food.
TFA is even worse than that with their usage of weasel-words.
Yet the finding that open-source advocates will like least is that free programs are not always cheaper.
Pay particular attention to the "not always" in that statement. If only ONE "open-source" app is more expensive than a SINGLE closed source app then their statement is true.
Right now the robots can only move folders to the desks of other people.
Recent experiments have proven that this presents problems of its own when said people are working remotely. Many robots were lost on the highway.
But in version 2.0, you will just call the robot and the robot will scan the folder generating an "electronic image" of the paperwork and then transfer it to a similar robot "living" with the person working remotely. Kind of like an "electronic mail" system. Truly then we will live in the world of tomorrow.
Although I'd expand that a bit more. It's not just about hiring the politicians who got you the money (get $1 billion for our company and we'll hire you at $1 million a year for every year of that contract or subsequent contracts).
It's also about hiring the FAMILIES of those politicians. Look around and you'll see an amazing number of wives and children of those politicians SOMEHOW working for the very corporations that benefit from the government contracts that those politicians push through based on fear of the (illegals | terrorists | pedophiles).
Then again, some rocket scientist may have disabled it for faster connect times.
Yep. Because when it was enabled, the port was not ready for when the database came up and since the database server couldn't authenticate to the AD controller... it threw an error.
Why not tie the database to a process that completed LATER in the boot process?
Because it is easier to blame the network and have the network guy find the REAL problem than it is to be competent at your job in the first place.
Once the network guy is gone, you can rewire the switch however you want to because the network guy is an idiot.
Why'd does every port I plug into go into an error disabled state?
The people on the "review board" (my boss and his compatriots) don't even know enough about my job to be able to determine whether what I've written is accurate.
They're more worried about having paperwork so that they can blame me if something goes wrong (they have the same boss) than they are about something not failing in the first place. Remember, blame shared is no blame at all.
So massive amounts of paperwork are generated... and nothing gets done. Until something breaks and then then all the updates are applied at once in an effort to see if that will fix the problem.
We had a SAN and attached blade chassis with ancient firmware on it. But I couldn't get approval to update it because the blades were running too many "mission critical" servers. Until one of the disks failed and the entire thing went into alarm. Approval was granted for THAT WEEKEND. Anything. Just get those servers stable. Pay the overtime for the consultant to come in and help with it.
No amount of paperwork worked before the disk failure. After the disk failure, A single sheet of paper with a SINGLE PARAGRAPH justifying the outage was deemed sufficient.
If there's any chance at all that something might NOT happen "on their watch" then they're going to dump all the effort onto you to get any change pushed through. Just because your change MIGHT cause a problem that they'd have to "deal with".
And by "deal with" I mean "tell you to fix" and "explain in a meeting with their boss why YOU broke something".
No. You haven't even bothered to explain why cross hairs imply advocacy of assassination. It's just libel in absence of evidence.
Again, don't use words you don't understand. It isn't "libel" and you're a liar for saying that it is.
If Sarah didn't think there was anything wrong with it then she wouldn't have taken it down. It's as simple as that.
Since you fail to understand what you said here in the first part of the above sentence, "actualize" means "make actual" or "make real". Thus, another synonym for "actualize" is "cause". In other words, you state she caused the shooting via her rhetoric. The legal term for this is incitement to commit a crime. And that is in itself a crime.
Don't use synonyms. That's an equivocation fallacy.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of pronouns.
A stupid red herring. Did I ever claim Palin pulled the trigger? No.
Did I say you said that? No. So your "red herring" is a strawman. And a pretty pathetic one at that.
What I said was that you were trying to imply that I had said that. Here's your direct quote:
I don't mean to imply that you are claiming she's the sole one guilty, but you state she is a cause, she actualized the shooting.
Like I said, don't use words that you don't understand. I never posted that she actualized the shooting. That is you lying and claiming that I said that.
To summarize, you claim that Palin caused (or "actualized" in your words) the shooting of Giffords and the deaths or injuries of many other people.
Then you're going to have to link to one of my posts where I said that because I haven't posted that. You're lying, again.
A casual reading of that map quickly shows that Palin wasn't advocating assassination, but rather voting against the congress people in the districts highlighted by these cross hairs.
And yet she's pulled that poster after the shooting.
Further, it takes little effort to see that a key part of the use of the graphic was to emphasize the defense of the Second Amendment. Thus, it is explained in an innocuous manner.
Thanks. It's always good to have a nutjob reveal himself in a thread.
Giffords supported gun ownership and owned a gun herself.
To keep the graphic up afterward sends the message that Palin and company approve of the shooting.
Which is EXACTLY what was said when she first posted it.
So it's okay to encourage shooting specific people BEFORE one of them is shot... but it's in bad taste to remind everyone that you encouraged shooting specific people AFTER one of them is shot?
To have the graphic before doesn't send this message. Context of the message matters. To claim that no change in context has happened is foolishness.
And what was the "change in context"? Crosshairs and a list of names.
If those could imply something bad AFTER the shooting then how could they not have implied that BEFORE the shooting?
But feel free to ignore that as you've ignored it all the other times its been posted.
You are indeed claiming that Palin is guilty in this crime.
Then you are going to have to link to a post of mine where I posted that she was. Otherwise you're lying. But that's what I'm demonstrating with this thread.
...she actualized the shooting.
I would suggest you not use words that you do not understand. She did not pull the trigger. And you should not try to imply that I said she did. But, again, that's what this thread is about. I'm demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You haven't given a reason that it's in bad taste. All I see is that there's an opportunity for you to blame someone you don't like for a crime they didn't commit.
If it wasn't in bad taste BEFORE the shooting then it wouldn't be in bad taste AFTER the shooting and it would still be posted on Palin's web site.
And since I haven't said that Palin was guilty of the shooting... you're just going to keep making baseless statements until I get tired of replying to you, aren't you?
That's great. Nothing like having you demonstrate how vacuous your position is on your own.
That is what you say. My view is that you are mistaking a very weak correlation for causation.
But I've never said that.
I won't even say "nice try at a strawman" because it wasn't. It's just you repeatedly posting and not even bothering to relate your posts to what you are replying to.
The point is that Palin's poster was in bad taste PRIOR to the shooting and only her followers defended it. As you are doing now.
... you don't think it was in bad taste to put them up in the first place?
Bad taste doesn't figure into this. If it's popular with her core supporters... she'll do it.
Right up to the time that it becomes more of a liability with the "mainstream".
Which is the situation here. When she put it up, her supporters were happy with it. But now, people who are not her "base" might develop a negative opinion of her if they saw it on the news.
At which point, her speaking fees dry up because fewer people want to pay someone who hosts a graphic like that to speak at their functions.
That's your opinion. The problem is... Palin doesn't seem to share it.
It remains clear that Palin wasn't advocating the shooting of these politicians.
No. That's the problem. It is only "clear" to her existing fans.
Once her rhetoric was actualized, she immediately pulled the graphic because she was afraid that she'd lose popularity if people saw that graphic AFTER they heard the news of the shooting.
It was in bad taste to post it in the first place. The bad taste was compounded every time they updated the site and did not take that graphic down. Now she's backing away from it by pulling it when the "undecideds" might see it on the news.
As to the charge of "flexible logic". It's pretty clear that the graphics were innocuous, but after a shooting like this they would appear disrespectful of the people who were hurt or killed.
If it was "innocuous" then it wouldn't be a problem after the shooting. And she wouldn't have pulled it. But she did. Because it wasn't "innocuous".
And to answer your original question, the crime was shooting the person not some pro-2nd amendment graphics.
You're probably responding to something else because I never posted that. Try to stick to what I've posted, kthx.
I think a lot of people buy that crap because they're too gutless to take a stand for what's right.
While I think they "buy" that crap because they WANT their party to be like that. And it's okay if my party is like that if the OTHER party is also like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Designing a wireless / wired network to support unsecured guests is a LOT different than designing one to support only secured guests.
AND it requires that all the PREVIOUS systems not have problems with the design.
The network admin has to support ALL the systems. Not just your pet.
What happens when the corporate database IS accessible from the corporate wifi because other apps need that access and those apps are run by people on wifi?
Remember that the network switches / hubs / routers are part of "the network".
So when there REALLY is a problem on the network, the network admins usually hear about it because EVERYONE is having problems with ALL of their apps.
If one workstation or one server is having a problem (but the others are working) then it probably isn't a problem with "the network".
It may be that the network is not configured the way you'd like it to be for whatever you're trying to do ... but remember that the network admins have to keep the network configured to support all the OTHER items that were on it before yours.
At least be able to tell them what you want to do protocol-wise.
Legally, that would depend upon the specific wording of the contract you signed with him.
Ethically, if he found a flaw that you did not know about and told you about it in a manner that allowed you to save money by fixing it before it got worse, then yes, you do owe him.
If you have a single web server with no remote administration capabilities or logs then you don't need a firewall.
I surf the 'web from my Ubuntu box without a firewall.
But using a firewall means that you split the functionality between 2 devices. Each, ideally, customized to be better at its specific task.
Do I want remote admin capabilities but only from my private network? A firewall with a DMZ makes that easy.
Do I want to log all access but not risk those logs should the web server be cracked? A firewall makes that easy.
And even the "cheap" Cisco firewalls can easily handle any inbound traffic that the average user is likely to face.
I don't agree with the "expert" in that story. I'd say that using a firewall is a good idea. But ONLY using a firewall (bad server admin or not defense in depth) is the problem.
They aren't "forced" to.
They can find another job.
But if they aren't teaching evolution, then they aren't teaching biology.
If they're paid to teach biology, then they're responsible for teaching evolution.
When you think about it, it makes sense. They have lots of people. It's more cost efficient to use man-power for most tasks than it is to train one person in specialized equipment.
You get lots of people working and the maintenance costs are almost zero. People at a construction site were moving materials around in a wheelbarrow made of old bicycle wheels (one without a tire).
How much would it cost to fix that wheelbarrow when it broke? Now compare that to fixing a forklift.
Meanwhile, they all have jobs and are getting paid and can buy food.
They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Not to mention plain incompetence on their part. Such as McAfee mistaking a core Windows file for a "virus" last year.
The more steps the user has to complete, the more likely that they will fail to install the malware on their system.
90% success with a single step is only 81% success with two steps (of 90% success each).
Three steps (90% success each) is only 73% success.
And that's not even counting the various worms that won't work because the systems do not ship with services listening for them by default.
You will NEVER stop trojans ... but you can reduce their number significantly just by requiring more steps for their installation.
TFA is even worse than that with their usage of weasel-words.
Pay particular attention to the "not always" in that statement. If only ONE "open-source" app is more expensive than a SINGLE closed source app then their statement is true.
Useless, but true.
Right now the robots can only move folders to the desks of other people.
Recent experiments have proven that this presents problems of its own when said people are working remotely. Many robots were lost on the highway.
But in version 2.0, you will just call the robot and the robot will scan the folder generating an "electronic image" of the paperwork and then transfer it to a similar robot "living" with the person working remotely. Kind of like an "electronic mail" system. Truly then we will live in the world of tomorrow.
Although I'd expand that a bit more. It's not just about hiring the politicians who got you the money (get $1 billion for our company and we'll hire you at $1 million a year for every year of that contract or subsequent contracts).
It's also about hiring the FAMILIES of those politicians. Look around and you'll see an amazing number of wives and children of those politicians SOMEHOW working for the very corporations that benefit from the government contracts that those politicians push through based on fear of the (illegals | terrorists | pedophiles).
http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html
I recommend we start a fund to send those plaques to any department even thinking about implementing this.
Yep. Because when it was enabled, the port was not ready for when the database came up and since the database server couldn't authenticate to the AD controller ... it threw an error.
Why not tie the database to a process that completed LATER in the boot process?
Because it is easier to blame the network and have the network guy find the REAL problem than it is to be competent at your job in the first place.
Once the network guy is gone, you can rewire the switch however you want to because the network guy is an idiot.
Why'd does every port I plug into go into an error disabled state?
The people on the "review board" (my boss and his compatriots) don't even know enough about my job to be able to determine whether what I've written is accurate.
They're more worried about having paperwork so that they can blame me if something goes wrong (they have the same boss) than they are about something not failing in the first place. Remember, blame shared is no blame at all.
So massive amounts of paperwork are generated ... and nothing gets done. Until something breaks and then then all the updates are applied at once in an effort to see if that will fix the problem.
We had a SAN and attached blade chassis with ancient firmware on it. But I couldn't get approval to update it because the blades were running too many "mission critical" servers. Until one of the disks failed and the entire thing went into alarm. Approval was granted for THAT WEEKEND. Anything. Just get those servers stable. Pay the overtime for the consultant to come in and help with it.
No amount of paperwork worked before the disk failure.
After the disk failure, A single sheet of paper with a SINGLE PARAGRAPH justifying the outage was deemed sufficient.
If there's any chance at all that something might NOT happen "on their watch" then they're going to dump all the effort onto you to get any change pushed through. Just because your change MIGHT cause a problem that they'd have to "deal with".
And by "deal with" I mean "tell you to fix" and "explain in a meeting with their boss why YOU broke something".
Again, don't use words you don't understand. It isn't "libel" and you're a liar for saying that it is.
If Sarah didn't think there was anything wrong with it then she wouldn't have taken it down. It's as simple as that.
Don't use synonyms. That's an equivocation fallacy.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of pronouns.
Did I say you said that? No. So your "red herring" is a strawman. And a pretty pathetic one at that.
What I said was that you were trying to imply that I had said that. Here's your direct quote:
Like I said, don't use words that you don't understand. I never posted that she actualized the shooting. That is you lying and claiming that I said that.
Then you're going to have to link to one of my posts where I said that because I haven't posted that. You're lying, again.
And yet she's pulled that poster after the shooting.
Thanks. It's always good to have a nutjob reveal himself in a thread.
Giffords supported gun ownership and owned a gun herself.
Which is EXACTLY what was said when she first posted it.
So it's okay to encourage shooting specific people BEFORE one of them is shot ... but it's in bad taste to remind everyone that you encouraged shooting specific people AFTER one of them is shot?
And what was the "change in context"? Crosshairs and a list of names.
If those could imply something bad AFTER the shooting then how could they not have implied that BEFORE the shooting?
But feel free to ignore that as you've ignored it all the other times its been posted.
Then you are going to have to link to a post of mine where I posted that she was. Otherwise you're lying. But that's what I'm demonstrating with this thread.
I would suggest you not use words that you do not understand. She did not pull the trigger. And you should not try to imply that I said she did. But, again, that's what this thread is about. I'm demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
If it wasn't in bad taste BEFORE the shooting then it wouldn't be in bad taste AFTER the shooting and it would still be posted on Palin's web site.
And since I haven't said that Palin was guilty of the shooting ... you're just going to keep making baseless statements until I get tired of replying to you, aren't you?
That's great. Nothing like having you demonstrate how vacuous your position is on your own.
But I've never said that.
I won't even say "nice try at a strawman" because it wasn't. It's just you repeatedly posting and not even bothering to relate your posts to what you are replying to.
The point is that Palin's poster was in bad taste PRIOR to the shooting and only her followers defended it. As you are doing now.
Both of them. They are both real. Neither are imaginary (as you had claimed).
I guess I wouldn't be considered "reasonable" either by someone who didn't think that Palin's poster was okay.
Meanwhile, if there really wasn't anything wrong with that poster, then why take it down after the shooting?
So the story about the shooting only happened in my imagination?
I'm sure that Giffords would prefer it that way. But it isn't so. She was shot, in the head.
Bad taste doesn't figure into this. If it's popular with her core supporters ... she'll do it.
Right up to the time that it becomes more of a liability with the "mainstream".
Which is the situation here. When she put it up, her supporters were happy with it. But now, people who are not her "base" might develop a negative opinion of her if they saw it on the news.
At which point, her speaking fees dry up because fewer people want to pay someone who hosts a graphic like that to speak at their functions.
That's your opinion. The problem is ... Palin doesn't seem to share it.
No. That's the problem. It is only "clear" to her existing fans.
Once her rhetoric was actualized, she immediately pulled the graphic because she was afraid that she'd lose popularity if people saw that graphic AFTER they heard the news of the shooting.
It was in bad taste to post it in the first place.
The bad taste was compounded every time they updated the site and did not take that graphic down.
Now she's backing away from it by pulling it when the "undecideds" might see it on the news.
If it was "innocuous" then it wouldn't be a problem after the shooting. And she wouldn't have pulled it. But she did. Because it wasn't "innocuous".
You're probably responding to something else because I never posted that. Try to stick to what I've posted, kthx.
So posting crosshairs and names is okay ... until someone actually puts the person with that name in crosshairs ... and pulls the trigger?
Again, that's some very flexible logic you have there. Particularly since this has been brought up on the news when she first posted it.
While I think they "buy" that crap because they WANT their party to be like that. And it's okay if my party is like that if the OTHER party is also like that.