What is more effective is a dynamic firewall. it opens ports ONLY when needed and then shuts them closed when done.
That's great and all, but what's the trigger to allow a port to be open? Whatever the trigger, it can be misused by malware and exploited, limiting the effectiveness of such a firewall. Furthermore, an infected host will constantly scan for the open port of choice and simply wait for another host to open up to use that service. In the SCADA case you cited, such a firewall would possibly slow down the infection, but it would not contain it any better that traditional firewalls.
If the vulnerable service is not needed, it should be disabled. And if it is needed, then it is probably allowed, or it won't work anyway? So how the firewall helps?
Your logic only works if each and every system has every single bit of software installed locked down from day one and no one can change it without admin approval. Even then, cascading vulnerabilities allow exploit code to run from "trusted" sources, which spread from any number of attack vectors. Local firewalls are one defense in what should be a multi-faceted strategy to defend against malware, maliciousness, and plain old stupidity.
As much as I hate to contribute to the Steamworks addiction that game developers have, I'll likely go this route. Speaking of which, I need to go check the torrents to see if one is available yet.
- people with less sucess will panhandle on the pavement or break into your house at night to rob you.
That's why I own a gun.
- masses of people can't afford an education and vote for whatever party has the best looking candidate.
Really? Explain Obama, then.
- you can go bankrupt paying for your children's cancer treatment.
Every hospital in America will work with patients facing hardship to reduce/forgive costs. Guess what? That's government funded.
- you can see your relative die because you can't afford treatment.
Everyone dies. Get used to it.
- you and your familly can end up in the street because you can't afford the rent anymore.
There are many alternatives to homelessness, most of which are privately financed. Also, if I can't afford rent, then I'm either spending my money on less important things and need to knock it off, or I'm unemployed and qualify for unemployment checks.
- your kids can end up as second class citizens on the work market because you can't afford to send them to college
I don't make the mistake of thinking I could take on a government with a couple of long guns and my personal ammo stash.
A lot of people misunderstand the purpose of an armed populace. We aren't supposed to rush the white house with 30-30s and shotguns when we're fed up with the government! Don't forget that the people in the armed forces are Americans. Just like you and me. If it gets to the point where a majority of Americans are irked enough by the government that they need to forcibly change it, don't you think some of them will be behind the wheel of the tanks and planes? The purpose (or one of the purposes) of an armed populace, is so that if we do get to that point, we will know which end of the gun faces the enemy; and if somehow China grows a navy, or some other country decides to invade the U.S., we have a built-in militia. Believe me, we will need a lot of guns if ten million armed Chinese wash ashore in California.
I do speak from experience when I say that a weapon serves no purpose other than to kill. You're deluding yourself if you think it serves another purpose...
Speaking from experience, deterrence is no illusion. Yeah, that mostly applies to containing aggressive nation-states, but there's all sorts of analogies of rational actors to criminals. It all has to do with risk assessment; picking the house that is least likely in producing conflict and/or limiting items to burgle. Most criminals, especially thieves are fairly good at risk assessment. I.E., house #1 has a dog, a security sign, and is brightly lit. House #2 has none of the former and there's a pile of newspapers on the driveway. Thief will pick #2. Guns provide a deterrent when either the thief is stupid enough or determined enough to go for house #1.
if you point a weapon at somebody, you damned well better be prepared to use it, and to accept the consequences of taking a life. If you aren't, then your weapon is a liability, and you should get rid of it
This is where a lot of gun waving idiots lose sight of reality and it's a fair point to address. Most people don't have the stomach for killing, and therefore shouldn't be gun owners. However, there are many who would rather shoot a threat to their family than have their family victimized.
I firmly believe that Americans have a legal right and more to the point, responsibility to own firearms. Sovereignty lies withing the people, therefore, the power to choose a different government by whatever means also lies within the people. Taking away firearms from the people effectively eliminates that power, which is contrary to the principles upon which our country was founded. Can't speak much for Europe, but history seems to indicate that you've had your run ins with government switching a time or two.
No, just think about it. If you have true self government, it doesn't matter if some people have fringe or incorrect opinions of the world because it doesn't affect you, its only when they can make decisions that affect you that it really matters. For example, given a mostly self-governed society, it wouldn't matter if they were wrong about the earth's place in the universe because they wouldn't be voting on any matter that didn't involve fraud/force because that is what the government would be restricted to. Sciences would be mostly the domain of private corporations or individuals with greater freedom due to the elimination of various trade barriers because of this which means that more science can be observed and discovered with practical applications.
With true self-government comes true freedoms of people to believe whatever delusion they wish without interfering with the rest of us.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Norwegian gasoline prices: Aproximately 12NOK per liter. That means 7.34USD per gallon of fuel.
Complain all you want about the gas-prices increasing to 8-10USD/gallon, but seriously, other countries can cope. So can you.
The problem with this logic is that a large majority of our goods are shipped via gas-powered vehicles (trucks/trains, etc) over roads/rails that span thousands of miles. Also take into account the speed of the price increase in Norway versus the speed suggested by the article and you are talking about shock to the economy, which is dangerous. Taking these two things into consideration, you'd be a fool to compare Norway of today with the USA in ten to twenty years.
The real truth is that if we had stayed out of the affairs of these sovereign nations since the end of WWII, there would be no major terrorist attacks against our troops (since they wouldn't be over there) or against our homeland. They would hate America no more or less than they hate New Zealand.
What a stunningly stupid thing to say. You been looking in a crystal ball? Consulting with the Tarot cards? How can you possibly know what would have happened if we hadn't stepped in to help any number of countries? Maybe we stopped someone worse than Saddam from taking power in the middle east. Maybe we stopped the Soviets from entrenching in Afghanistan and expanding into Pakistan or threatening China with nukes from all directions? The bottom line is that we have no idea what would have happened.
Of course there would still be terrorist attacks against America. We are the most powerful nation in the world. The best always attract people and organizations that want to take away what they are most jealous of. A thousand years of any country's history will tell you that.
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!
Jesus was also referring to the untranslated, unaltered version of the Old Testament, as it was delivered to the prophets. Do you have a copy of that version so I can read it? No? Didn't think so.
Old, new... Same God, right? If OT God was happy to command the execution of heretics (among others) why would he suddenly find the policy objectionable at a later time? This is God, after all. Perfection doesn't change.
No, but man's notion of God's perfection does change.
and really - if you can't accept multiple contradictory statements you are going to have bigger problems with religion and the bible.
That's precisely why we need something besides the Bible to establish Christian doctrine. Trying to rely on man's interpretation is iffy at best. Why do that when another source of truth is out there?
Sigh. My father fought in Vietnam and his father in WWII. In each war, there were atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Does that make it unpalatable to Americans? You betcha. Soldiers of all persuasions are put into positions where they are the ultimate power in a given situation and sometimes, they give in to the urge to behave like animals. Wouldn't it be great if American soldiers were immune from that? Sadly, they aren't and our (America's) image is tainted.
Look at #4 under the following definition. It means to "bring to an end", which he referred to in the verse you quoted (by using the word accomplished). What he was saying was that the law was over and a new one was replacing it. It had done what it was meant to do, but it was time to live a "higher law", which he delineates in the rest of the chapter, ending with "be ye therefore perfect." which is definitely not in the Mosaic law.
Me personally? Well, considering I was in middle school at the time...
Now if we're talking about "Me" as in Americans, that's something different. History is replete with mea culpa moments like that. In fact, two of the biggest threats to US interests were aided into power by America (Afghanistan and Iran). The same lens that we use to pick apart history can't see as well into the future. What's your solution?
The difference between religion and science is the difference between learning with your heart and learning with your mind. They are both valid ways to learn and have nothing to do with the modernity of society. If you want to talk about changeability, let's talk fashion. Relatively speaking, God is pretty stable.
I have to agree with you that most Muslims believe in tolerance and peaceful coexistence; just like most Christians. Funny thing is when you put the word "fundamentalist" in front of a religion, you get all kinds of whack-job ideas and actions coming out of it. Extremism (I'd put burning Korans in that boat) is bad all the way around.
Slashdot Mirror
What is more effective is a dynamic firewall. it opens ports ONLY when needed and then shuts them closed when done.
That's great and all, but what's the trigger to allow a port to be open? Whatever the trigger, it can be misused by malware and exploited, limiting the effectiveness of such a firewall. Furthermore, an infected host will constantly scan for the open port of choice and simply wait for another host to open up to use that service. In the SCADA case you cited, such a firewall would possibly slow down the infection, but it would not contain it any better that traditional firewalls.
If the vulnerable service is not needed, it should be disabled. And if it is needed, then it is probably allowed, or it won't work anyway? So how the firewall helps?
Your logic only works if each and every system has every single bit of software installed locked down from day one and no one can change it without admin approval. Even then, cascading vulnerabilities allow exploit code to run from "trusted" sources, which spread from any number of attack vectors. Local firewalls are one defense in what should be a multi-faceted strategy to defend against malware, maliciousness, and plain old stupidity.
As much as I hate to contribute to the Steamworks addiction that game developers have, I'll likely go this route. Speaking of which, I need to go check the torrents to see if one is available yet.
- people with less sucess will panhandle on the pavement or break into your house at night to rob you.
That's why I own a gun.
- masses of people can't afford an education and vote for whatever party has the best looking candidate.
Really? Explain Obama, then.
- you can go bankrupt paying for your children's cancer treatment.
Every hospital in America will work with patients facing hardship to reduce/forgive costs. Guess what? That's government funded.
- you can see your relative die because you can't afford treatment.
Everyone dies. Get used to it.
- you and your familly can end up in the street because you can't afford the rent anymore.
There are many alternatives to homelessness, most of which are privately financed. Also, if I can't afford rent, then I'm either spending my money on less important things and need to knock it off, or I'm unemployed and qualify for unemployment checks.
- your kids can end up as second class citizens on the work market because you can't afford to send them to college
That's the best part about living in America. College drop outs make bank all the time!
I don't make the mistake of thinking I could take on a government with a couple of long guns and my personal ammo stash.
A lot of people misunderstand the purpose of an armed populace. We aren't supposed to rush the white house with 30-30s and shotguns when we're fed up with the government! Don't forget that the people in the armed forces are Americans. Just like you and me. If it gets to the point where a majority of Americans are irked enough by the government that they need to forcibly change it, don't you think some of them will be behind the wheel of the tanks and planes? The purpose (or one of the purposes) of an armed populace, is so that if we do get to that point, we will know which end of the gun faces the enemy; and if somehow China grows a navy, or some other country decides to invade the U.S., we have a built-in militia. Believe me, we will need a lot of guns if ten million armed Chinese wash ashore in California.
I do speak from experience when I say that a weapon serves no purpose other than to kill. You're deluding yourself if you think it serves another purpose...
Speaking from experience, deterrence is no illusion. Yeah, that mostly applies to containing aggressive nation-states, but there's all sorts of analogies of rational actors to criminals. It all has to do with risk assessment; picking the house that is least likely in producing conflict and/or limiting items to burgle. Most criminals, especially thieves are fairly good at risk assessment. I.E., house #1 has a dog, a security sign, and is brightly lit. House #2 has none of the former and there's a pile of newspapers on the driveway. Thief will pick #2. Guns provide a deterrent when either the thief is stupid enough or determined enough to go for house #1.
if you point a weapon at somebody, you damned well better be prepared to use it, and to accept the consequences of taking a life. If you aren't, then your weapon is a liability, and you should get rid of it
This is where a lot of gun waving idiots lose sight of reality and it's a fair point to address. Most people don't have the stomach for killing, and therefore shouldn't be gun owners. However, there are many who would rather shoot a threat to their family than have their family victimized.
I firmly believe that Americans have a legal right and more to the point, responsibility to own firearms. Sovereignty lies withing the people, therefore, the power to choose a different government by whatever means also lies within the people. Taking away firearms from the people effectively eliminates that power, which is contrary to the principles upon which our country was founded. Can't speak much for Europe, but history seems to indicate that you've had your run ins with government switching a time or two.
No, just think about it. If you have true self government, it doesn't matter if some people have fringe or incorrect opinions of the world because it doesn't affect you, its only when they can make decisions that affect you that it really matters. For example, given a mostly self-governed society, it wouldn't matter if they were wrong about the earth's place in the universe because they wouldn't be voting on any matter that didn't involve fraud/force because that is what the government would be restricted to. Sciences would be mostly the domain of private corporations or individuals with greater freedom due to the elimination of various trade barriers because of this which means that more science can be observed and discovered with practical applications.
With true self-government comes true freedoms of people to believe whatever delusion they wish without interfering with the rest of us.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Norwegian gasoline prices: Aproximately 12NOK per liter. That means 7.34USD per gallon of fuel.
Complain all you want about the gas-prices increasing to 8-10USD/gallon, but seriously, other countries can cope. So can you.
The problem with this logic is that a large majority of our goods are shipped via gas-powered vehicles (trucks/trains, etc) over roads/rails that span thousands of miles. Also take into account the speed of the price increase in Norway versus the speed suggested by the article and you are talking about shock to the economy, which is dangerous. Taking these two things into consideration, you'd be a fool to compare Norway of today with the USA in ten to twenty years.
And last I heard, no Iraqis or Iranians or Afghanis have ever shouted "Death to China."
Not yet...
Sounds like we need another testament of the gospel Jesus taught.
Which Catholic Church?
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The real truth is that if we had stayed out of the affairs of these sovereign nations since the end of WWII, there would be no major terrorist attacks against our troops (since they wouldn't be over there) or against our homeland. They would hate America no more or less than they hate New Zealand.
What a stunningly stupid thing to say. You been looking in a crystal ball? Consulting with the Tarot cards? How can you possibly know what would have happened if we hadn't stepped in to help any number of countries? Maybe we stopped someone worse than Saddam from taking power in the middle east. Maybe we stopped the Soviets from entrenching in Afghanistan and expanding into Pakistan or threatening China with nukes from all directions? The bottom line is that we have no idea what would have happened.
Of course there would still be terrorist attacks against America. We are the most powerful nation in the world. The best always attract people and organizations that want to take away what they are most jealous of. A thousand years of any country's history will tell you that.
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!
Jesus was also referring to the untranslated, unaltered version of the Old Testament, as it was delivered to the prophets. Do you have a copy of that version so I can read it? No? Didn't think so.
Old, new... Same God, right? If OT God was happy to command the execution of heretics (among others) why would he suddenly find the policy objectionable at a later time? This is God, after all. Perfection doesn't change.
No, but man's notion of God's perfection does change.
Which is why some people claim there is no "right to privacy".
and really - if you can't accept multiple contradictory statements you are going to have bigger problems with religion and the bible.
That's precisely why we need something besides the Bible to establish Christian doctrine. Trying to rely on man's interpretation is iffy at best. Why do that when another source of truth is out there?
Two totally different kinds of recruiting and you know it. One is forced and immediate. The other is more like propaganda.
In short, we're dieing over there because of a longshot, nation-building idea that probably will never work out.
Which is precisely why I didn't support the invasion of Iraq.
Sigh. My father fought in Vietnam and his father in WWII. In each war, there were atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Does that make it unpalatable to Americans? You betcha. Soldiers of all persuasions are put into positions where they are the ultimate power in a given situation and sometimes, they give in to the urge to behave like animals. Wouldn't it be great if American soldiers were immune from that? Sadly, they aren't and our (America's) image is tainted.
Look at #4 under the following definition. It means to "bring to an end", which he referred to in the verse you quoted (by using the word accomplished). What he was saying was that the law was over and a new one was replacing it. It had done what it was meant to do, but it was time to live a "higher law", which he delineates in the rest of the chapter, ending with "be ye therefore perfect." which is definitely not in the Mosaic law.
Never underestimate the power of a Mormon with a computer. :)
Me personally? Well, considering I was in middle school at the time...
Now if we're talking about "Me" as in Americans, that's something different. History is replete with mea culpa moments like that. In fact, two of the biggest threats to US interests were aided into power by America (Afghanistan and Iran). The same lens that we use to pick apart history can't see as well into the future. What's your solution?
The difference between religion and science is the difference between learning with your heart and learning with your mind. They are both valid ways to learn and have nothing to do with the modernity of society. If you want to talk about changeability, let's talk fashion. Relatively speaking, God is pretty stable.
I have to agree with you that most Muslims believe in tolerance and peaceful coexistence; just like most Christians. Funny thing is when you put the word "fundamentalist" in front of a religion, you get all kinds of whack-job ideas and actions coming out of it. Extremism (I'd put burning Korans in that boat) is bad all the way around.