The US cannot have a policy where some states allow gay marriage and others do not. That sort of thing would lead to situations where getting a divorce would me walking over to the next state. The legal situation would be impossible to resolve. As I see it, the only way is to nail this down - for all states - is to have an amendment that says yes or no
I agree that nailing down an answer at the Federal level is important for uniformity -- no question there.:)
What I'm saying, in addition to this, is that the answer itself needs to be "no gay marriage". That's not treading on anyone's rights -- it's a matter of morality and stability for the US.
but passing a Constitutional Amendment to marginalize gays!
The rest of your post is very insightful, but you're way off base here.
The stability of (real) marriage and the family unit is crucial to the stability and morality of this country.
This proposed amendment is not about gay bashing (or "marginalization"). They're free to practice their evil behind closed doors; their actions revolt me, but as a small-'l' libertarian I don't support outlawing such behavior.
What this amendment *is* about is protecting the country by protecting one of the foundations upon which we're built -- stable, normal, productive, moral relationships. The benefits that go along with marriage are for those who contribute toward a healthy society -- not those who would destroy it with immoral behavior.
So your GPS device also has a clock on it, and it gets a signal from 3 or 4 sattelites (4th for altitude if you want it, or more just for more accuracy) and it compares the time to its own and this way it can know exactly how far away each sattelite is, and it triangulates its position.
The religious right must've spooged in their shorts when the supreme court handed the Presidency to Bush
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "religious right", but I think I fit that description (Christian, pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, etc.) and I hate this administration. I despise Bush the retard, Cheney the evil money man, and Ashcroft the tyrant fascist.
I guess my point is to be careful painting people with such a broad brush...
Could you recommend such a card (make/model) and software to run it? My budget and needs are more in line with 12-16 tracks, but 24 would be acceptable as well.
Could you please point me to the click-n-drool option button in Windows2000 that allows me to enable command-line completion? What, I have to manually edit the registry?
Those of us who believe homosexuality to be disgusting and morally wrong are not bigots. I'm an reasonable guy, but I also have morals... Oh, wait, I forgot, this is Slashdot, where moral relativism is the name of the game...
There are always going to be oddities with any big online service
Hmm, like Slashdot?
This is not a troll or an offtopic post; I've noticed a wacky problem in Slashdot's "Slash" code for some time now (since the last major code rev, I think). Before that rev, the threshold-modifier select box used to work properly. Now, it seems to be miscalculating the number of posts in a given thread at each threshold level, e.g.:
Basically, RMX has [two] critical flaws. First, it requires a new DNS resource record type, which is going to require everyone to upgrade their name servers if they want to use it.
Sysadmins who use real DNS software have no such burden. The tinydns data file format provides an easy way to include data of arbitrary types, which is equivalent to creating new RR types on the fly. See this page (search for "Generic record").
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer.
Amen. I'm glad someone else has enough backbone to come out and say this.
Even more disturbing than TV's gratuitous profanity, IMHO, is the fact that just about every show these days glorifies immoral lifestyles. It seems like every sitcom out there depicts unmarried couples living together, having sex, etc. Then there's junk like "Will & Grace", which proclaims that flagrant homosexual practice is acceptable, and even normal. Yikes.
Watching primetime trash these days makes me want to destroy my TV. I probably would, if it weren't for generally high-quality shows like L&O, which actually go for thoughtful plotlines rather than the promotion of immorality...
Why I am not surprised to hear someone proposing to add more breakage to BIND? I mean, it's already got a shit security model, a shit security record, a horse's ass of a data replication system, and a bunch of head-up-ass developers...
And yes, I know you were being facetious. My points still stand. And mods -- since this is a discussion on DNS, don't mod me "offtopic" simply because you're BIND fanboys.
No, I did not miss the article. That article described one way (assuming that NAT mechanisms sequentially increment the IPid field and using heuristics based on that), and that said method is very imprecise, error-prone, and easy to fool.
If you had actually read the article to which you linked, you would discover that the "technique" presented for determining the number of hosts behind a NAT box is incredibly imprecise and very easy to fool.
The article is filled with hedging, excuses, and admissions that the technique is flawed.
The technique relies on the IP header identification field being chosen by a simple incrementing function, an assumption that was bad to begin with, and will only become worse as IP stack writers use more complex functions to generate IPid fields.
Indeed, as many of the comments to that article indicated, Linux and the BSDs (for example) already support the use of PRNG's for this function, thus utterly destroying the utility of this technique. If ISPs were stupid enough to begin using this technique and hassling users over it, you can damn well bet that ALL implementations of NAT would randomize the IPid field lickety-split.
If my reasonable arguments haven't convinced you, perhaps the author of the paper can. I quote from page 5: "A properly designed NAT can block information leakage."
I suggest that BIND (the software that runs 60% of the DNS) should be enhanced in several ways: The most important one, IMHO, is to [blah]
I have a better suggestion. The most important BIND enhancement is: to give a damn about security. No, wait, how about: to stop obfuscating the simple concept of Internet naming, leading everyone to believe that the DNS is somehow difficult to comprehend. Or: to abandom the demonstrably-stupid AXFR protocol. Or: ad nauseum.
Actually, all things considered, perhaps the most important BIND enhancement would be to disappear, and for everyone to start using real DNS software.
Slashdot Mirror
The US cannot have a policy where some states allow gay marriage and others do not. That sort of thing would lead to situations where getting a divorce would me walking over to the next state. The legal situation would be impossible to resolve. As I see it, the only way is to nail this down - for all states - is to have an amendment that says yes or no
:)
I agree that nailing down an answer at the Federal level is important for uniformity -- no question there.
What I'm saying, in addition to this, is that the answer itself needs to be "no gay marriage". That's not treading on anyone's rights -- it's a matter of morality and stability for the US.
but passing a Constitutional Amendment to marginalize gays!
The rest of your post is very insightful, but you're way off base here.
The stability of (real) marriage and the family unit is crucial to the stability and morality of this country.
This proposed amendment is not about gay bashing (or "marginalization"). They're free to practice their evil behind closed doors; their actions revolt me, but as a small-'l' libertarian I don't support outlawing such behavior.
What this amendment *is* about is protecting the country by protecting one of the foundations upon which we're built -- stable, normal, productive, moral relationships. The benefits that go along with marriage are for those who contribute toward a healthy society -- not those who would destroy it with immoral behavior.
So your GPS device also has a clock on it, and it gets a signal from 3 or 4 sattelites (4th for altitude if you want it, or more just for more accuracy) and it compares the time to its own and this way it can know exactly how far away each sattelite is, and it triangulates its position.
Trilateration, not triangulation.
More info here.
The religious right must've spooged in their shorts when the supreme court handed the Presidency to Bush
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "religious right", but I think I fit that description (Christian, pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, etc.) and I hate this administration. I despise Bush the retard, Cheney the evil money man, and Ashcroft the tyrant fascist.
I guess my point is to be careful painting people with such a broad brush...
Emacs would never fit onto a flash memory stick...
This coming from someone who advocates BIND...
the software controlling the 24 track soundcard
Could you recommend such a card (make/model) and software to run it? My budget and needs are more in line with 12-16 tracks, but 24 would be acceptable as well.
Could you please point me to the click-n-drool option button in Windows2000 that allows me to enable command-line completion? What, I have to manually edit the registry?
Here you go.
pander to the anti-gay bigots
Those of us who believe homosexuality to be disgusting and morally wrong are not bigots. I'm an reasonable guy, but I also have morals... Oh, wait, I forgot, this is Slashdot, where moral relativism is the name of the game...
So how does this help Joe User running the average Linksys WAP/Router?
They should be campaigning for Linksys (ad nauseum) to include this functionality in such "routers".
Or, they can wait until the FBI busts them for kiddie porn, and *then* decide that network security is worth it.
Is the person who ran the unsecured AP in any way liable for what was done from his connection?
That's why you *need* to use a firewall+VPN for wireless networks. Here you go.
BIND is safely chrooted away where it can (hopefully?) do no harm until I get around to writing a replacement
Here you go.
Good and evil are quaint notions?!?
It's ludicrous to say that "the other 95% gets to play". There are other OSes out there besides MacOS and Windows...
...not that anyone smart enough to avoid Apple/M$ would be stupid enough to support DRM.
There are always going to be oddities with any big online service
Hmm, like Slashdot?
This is not a troll or an offtopic post; I've noticed a wacky problem in Slashdot's "Slash" code for some time now (since the last major code rev, I think). Before that rev, the threshold-modifier select box used to work properly. Now, it seems to be miscalculating the number of posts in a given thread at each threshold level, e.g.:
-1: 49 comments
0: 49 comments
1: 49 comments
2: 49 comments
3: 49 comments
4: 42 comments
5: 34 comments
I find it very hard to believe that there are the same number of comments at levels -1 to 3 inclusive. Any Slash hackers care to comment?
Basically, RMX has [two] critical flaws. First, it requires a new DNS resource record type, which is going to require everyone to upgrade their name servers if they want to use it.
Sysadmins who use real DNS software have no such burden. The tinydns data file format provides an easy way to include data of arbitrary types, which is equivalent to creating new RR types on the fly. See this page (search for "Generic record").
Microsoft Patents 'Phone-Home' Failure Reporting
Darn. I just set up Argus to monitor server failure and phone me when it happens. Are the evil monkeys coming for me now?
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer.
Amen. I'm glad someone else has enough backbone to come out and say this.
Even more disturbing than TV's gratuitous profanity, IMHO, is the fact that just about every show these days glorifies immoral lifestyles. It seems like every sitcom out there depicts unmarried couples living together, having sex, etc. Then there's junk like "Will & Grace", which proclaims that flagrant homosexual practice is acceptable, and even normal. Yikes.
Watching primetime trash these days makes me want to destroy my TV. I probably would, if it weren't for generally high-quality shows like L&O, which actually go for thoughtful plotlines rather than the promotion of immorality...
Just me $0.02...
How in the damned hell was that flamebait?!?
Wow, the last line cracked me up. My new sig:
Why I am not surprised to hear someone proposing to add more breakage to BIND? I mean, it's already got a shit security model, a shit security record, a horse's ass of a data replication system, and a bunch of head-up-ass developers...
Thank goodness real DNS software exists.
And yes, I know you were being facetious. My points still stand. And mods -- since this is a discussion on DNS, don't mod me "offtopic" simply because you're BIND fanboys.
No, I did not miss the article. That article described one way (assuming that NAT mechanisms sequentially increment the IPid field and using heuristics based on that), and that said method is very imprecise, error-prone, and easy to fool.
Don't be a moron.
If you had actually read the article to which you linked, you would discover that the "technique" presented for determining the number of hosts behind a NAT box is incredibly imprecise and very easy to fool.
The article is filled with hedging, excuses, and admissions that the technique is flawed.
The technique relies on the IP header identification field being chosen by a simple incrementing function, an assumption that was bad to begin with, and will only become worse as IP stack writers use more complex functions to generate IPid fields.
Indeed, as many of the comments to that article indicated, Linux and the BSDs (for example) already support the use of PRNG's for this function, thus utterly destroying the utility of this technique. If ISPs were stupid enough to begin using this technique and hassling users over it, you can damn well bet that ALL implementations of NAT would randomize the IPid field lickety-split.
If my reasonable arguments haven't convinced you, perhaps the author of the paper can. I quote from page 5: "A properly designed NAT can block information leakage."
Now whose credibility has been destroyed, punk?
"Hee hee, my ISP doesn't realise I'm connecting more than one PC" BONK. Yes they do.
And with that, your credibility rating drops to zero. Thanks for playing; have a nice day.
I suggest that BIND (the software that runs 60% of the DNS) should be enhanced in several ways: The most important one, IMHO, is to [blah]
I have a better suggestion. The most important BIND enhancement is: to give a damn about security. No, wait, how about: to stop obfuscating the simple concept of Internet naming, leading everyone to believe that the DNS is somehow difficult to comprehend. Or: to abandom the demonstrably-stupid AXFR protocol. Or: ad nauseum.
Actually, all things considered, perhaps the most important BIND enhancement would be to disappear, and for everyone to start using real DNS software.
Who cares? Sendmail is obsolete.
qmail
postfix
exim