First off don't let the job consume you. I personally suffer from this afflication. I'm young, single, making a good wage (could always be higher but it's not a bad wage at all), and I'm constantly learning things (a top 3 requirement for me). However I constantly stay late, I do things for work even after I leave the office, and I think about work 24/7. I have to get a life. You have to get a life. I started working out every morning at the YMCA. It's been a good means of relieving stress and I hope it will lead to an improvement in my personal life. I'm a network engineer; you're a computer programmer. I'm sure we both sit about the same amount all day long. Unless you're already working out I can guarantee you that you're either already overweight and out of shape or you will be within 6 months. If it's not too late, get your ass into the gym and stop it from happening to you. Your health is what's at risk. I wish that I'd managed to do that myself. Now I'm trying to recover from only 3-4 years of bad health habits and 90lbs of excess weight (or at least weight I didn't have back when I was active in college. 60lbs would get me down to the low-end of the correct weight for my build and age). Don't weight until it's too late, trust me.
If you're making more money than you need then you need to plan for the future. I take it that you're young. It is not too early to start saving for retirement. Yeah, I know it sounds silly to think about retirement when you're in your early 20s. It's worth it though. I won't waste your time with numbers but there are plenty of websites out there that you can refer to. The main thing is to increase your retirement savings. Does your company have any retirement matching (ie, do they match what you contribute up to say 5% of your pay?)? If so then take advantage of it. On top of that increase your retirement contribution to use up some of that excess income. If you are really lucky and are making and putting enough $$$ into your 401k to hit the IRS limit then contribute to an IRA. The limit on that is $5k. Do you still have $$ to play with? First off make sure that you have no debt. Next look into investing in a home instead of paying rent. This is what I'm getting ready to do. Also same up some $$ in a fairly liquid form (not stocks but perhaps bonds) for emergencies. All too few of people have any cash on hand for emergencies such as major vehicle repairs, medical problems, deaths in the family requiring traveling, etc. The whole point of this is that you should take advantage of your good financial years to plan for potentially bad financial years. They happen to everyone so you should be prepared. Plan ahead and you'll have less regret later.
That's where what I just suggested would be useful. Remind the public of what all has transpired over the candidate's term in office and what the opposition's candidate's stances are as well.
I would love to see some put up signs the list what Junior has done right or wrong. These could be billboards, human-placards, etc on the way to/in front of voting stations. If it lists everything equally for say 2 major candidates then no one can say that it's helping on candidate over the other. I think that people need a reminder of what all has happened over any given 4 years. A scoreboard of facts would be useful I think.
The problem as I see it is that Bush is intentionally doing this. This is part of the GOP plan. He's intentionally looking like a total ass (more so than normal). This will cause many of people who normally vote for the GOP to say, "damn, what an asshole". They'll of course still have reservations about voting for the Dems but they still want to vote for somebody. The GOP puts out a slightly more moderate candidate, one who speaking strongly about the war with doubletalk about getting out but also for fighting the good fight. This candidate also takes a more lenient stance on stem cell research, probably the same stance on gays, and a less open stance on religion (so he can come out of the religious closet in office and even further blur the line between church and state). This candidate appeals to all the GOP voters because he's not the fanatical version of Bush and he's a GOP candidate. This will of course win back the hearts and minds of the GOP sheep when in fact the GOP message hasn't changed. It's the exact same message that Junior was spewing back when he ran. He has to veer far to the right to make a distinction between himself and the incoming GOP candidate. Basically he's saying FU to the office and the people; I'm going to help my party keep control of the office by setting up the incoming candidate to smell like a rose compared to me.
This train of thought doesn't get you out of the gates though. If Uncle Sam had to secretly spend millions of $$ to make changes due to a security problem or other major issue then none of the tech they used would have ever gotten off the ground. For example, McDonald Douglas's and Boeing's planes have been fraught with problems, many of which were serious security problems (Google for more info). Not all of these problems were found in the testing phases either. Uncle Sam still brought in the developers to try and resolve the problems instead of scrapping the project and switching to another manufacturer. Serious security problems are found in Windows every day. I'm sure some of them were discovered by Uncle Sam. I'm sure Uncle Sam shared the discovery with Microsoft so that they could fix the problem. Uncle Sam didn't keep it a secret while switching to Macs to preserve their national security.
When it comes right down to it there is absolutely no reason why the missing details couldn't have been shared with the OpenSSL people. Getting FIPS 140-2 requires some significant background checks as it is. If Uncle Sam was really worried they could have approached OpenSSL and said "we've found a major problem. We'd like to fix it with you. Before we do we need you and any other person that may be required to work on this problem or know about this problem to submit to a stringent background check prior to us divulging the nature of this security issue.". I'm sure the OSSL would have been glad to have that level of interaction with such an important client.
This is why you don't rely on simple implicit authorization (MAC) for granting network access but instead force your users to VPN deeper into the network to gain access to anything over the wireless network. This brings back authentication and once again gives you authorization controls on a per user basis. Frankly it doesn't matter if your WEP keys (yes, I'm kidding, but then again I'm also serious) are compromised because the VPN tunnel protects all the sensitive traffic. It's a slick solution.
You can deploy the required changes quite easily with AD and SMS. With any network that has 75k access ports you must already have some form of desktop management software in use, such as SMS. If you're running a Windows network then you've surely stepped up to AD by now. 1X can be controlled with group policies. I know that XP has 1X enabled by default. I don't know about 2k.
You don't enable 1X on access ports for servers. Your servers should be segregated not only on to a separate VLAN but, in anything but the smallest of networks, onto separate switches. If you want to provide interface security in these subnets you should simply use MAC locking. Also set up a SNMP trap monitoring system to alert you of security violations on these ports.
As far as network printers go you should already know which port any given printer is on since these printers should be in separate VLANs. You should not place a printer in the same VLAN as desktops for security reasons. There have been many rather slick hacks over the years involving taking a printer offline (with a DoS or physically unplugging the printer) so that an insider can become that printer and accept printjobs containing confidential information. No matter how much we preach security and how seriously some companies take security almost no company has a printer clause in their security policy. Ie, how are printjobs containing sensitive information handled? Can they be printed to a printer in an area with a lower security level? How long can a sensitive printout sit in the output bin of a printer? etc. Always place printers in another VLAN. Ideally you'd deny all access to these VLANs except from known print servers. You don't use 802.1X in the printer VLANs. Instead you use MAC locking and ingress/egress ACLs.
Contrary to popular mis-conception IEEE 802.1X is not enabled on every port across the LAN. It is ONLY enabled on access-layer interfaces that face users. You do not enable it on infrastructure ports (obivously) or on server ports. For an auth failure you can default to either no access or you can automaticlaly place that port in a specific VLAN. That VLAN has restricted access across the campus where you can do all sorts of things to it. You can set up a user registration system so that the user can establish a guest pass for a specific amount of time (think hotal guest management software). You can also force it through a VPN termination device such as a firewall or a VPN concentrator. I recommend this for wireless users. That way they have to use VPN to complete AAA and gain access to their internal network resources. You could create a honeynet to see what this user with a failed connection is trying to gain access to. There are all sorts of things you can do.
If your infrastructure doesn't support a technology that you want/need to role out then you're essentially screwed. It happens. In a couple years a new tech will come out that a customer of mine will want to run. This new tech is not available on their hardware they already own, even with a code update. Their 3-year old network will have to be replaced. This comes down to a business decision. Are the added features valuable enough to justify the costs of the forklift upgrade. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That not the decision of us technical people to make. We present the summation to the business people and let them make the call.
A perfect example of this is with IEEE 802.af. 802.af was ratified in December of 2003. Prior to that date all previously shipped PoE devices were pre-standard and many were incompatible with the final standard (such as Cisco's implementation). You spent $250k in 2002 to install a new 10/100 network with redundant GigE backhauls to a partially-meshed distribution layer that has a fully-meshed ATM core. By all accounts it's a nice network. Now you want to deploy VoIP across the network and you're finding that your 2002 switches don't support PoE. They don't support voice VLANs. They have limited QoS
This happens to be a horrible solution. This completely defeats the purposes of Traffic Engineering. Now all traffic is encrypted between IPSec end-points. This eliminated PBR. This eliminates access-layer filtering at L3 and L4. MPLS? What's that? CoS and QoS is effectively defeated as well. If you implement a solution based on this technology then you might was well save yourself some big bucks and start buying dumb switches instead of the entreprise grade gear from one of the big name companies. This is not a good solution for this application. For securing traffic in a DMZ back to the firewall? Sure; that's a slick use of this tech. There are far better established methods and technologies for accomplishing the same thing. Those other ways would also happen to be what we network engineers call "standards".
You can't send it back and get a refund. Apple isn't selling you a generic PC. They're selling you a Mac. It's not like Dell selling you a PC with a copy of Microsoft Windows. Apple is selling you a Mac. It runs the MacOS (though I wonder for how much longer they'll take that approach). It's like buying a Chevy Silverado. You can't take ship the tires back to the factory and ask for a refund.
Entreprises were the original users of it. More functional servers in less physical space is quite appealing to large entreprise customers. Think about how many wasted CPU cycles are in a small datacenter of 20 machines. Those 20 machines collectively have 40GB of RAM and 30-40 total processors and yet are actually utilizing maybe 10% of the actual resources. Harness that power and use the unused cycles for other servers. These companies quickly realie the benefits of stripping out the wasted layer of overhead from underneath the server (also called Windows) and instead buy a copy of ESX. These are also the companies that require products with support.
I think this will quickly take off in the small to medium size companies as well. The tech is really esay to set up. The basic server is now free. Why should a small office buy a new machine just to test a new development product when they can easily, securely, and safely set up a virtual on a slice of a another under-utilized server? At some point they'll realize they need support and they'll buy a support contract with VMWare. At some point they may even step up to ESX. It's a win win situation for everyone.
I have a vision for the next step VMWare might take. I think they'll come up with a way to leech the unused CPU cycles and othe resources off of existing servers without actually putting a VM on that existing server. It sounds weird but let me explain what I mean. To me VMWare works best when you have a machine dedicated to running VMs. I run GSX at home. Nothing else runs on the host itself most of the time. The problem is most companies that want to get into virtual environments probably can't afford to buy a new dual CPU server just to experiment with a technology that they don't necessarily trust. They're going to want to run it on a server they already have. This server will undoubtedly be in production already. They'll install VMWare Server on this box and will greatly limit the amount of resource the virtual can consume. This of course will likely lead to a bad experience with virutalization technology. If something bad doesn't happen then they'll at least be disappointed with the performance. To counter this I'd like to see a piece of software that can be installed on half a dozen production boxes that gives a management box an interface to the CPUs on those production server. This would let you spread around the CPU load of your virtuals much like a beowulf cluster. This would be make migrating to VMWare much easier for most companies in my opinion. They could add numerous servers and a couple high-end workstations to the cluster of machines and slowly but surely remove servers from the cluster and turn it into a new dedicated VMWare server.
The other use of this software is probably the more likely use of it. Most migrating companies aren't going to be able to afford or justify $15-25k on a new billy badass server to host their VMs on. Instead they'll end up with a dozen lower-end existing servers. They'll run a few VMs on this server, a few on that server, etc. If they could simply bond them all together into one cohesive unit they could manage them easier and give the lower-end customers a much more useable product. You might have to dedicate a machine to be the brains of the operation but that wouldn't be that costly. It's a lot more cost-effective to use the dozen or so Dell 1850 and 2850 servers you already own instead of buying a new 6850. This could also be a way to introduce fault-tolerance into your virtual environment. As long as the brain server is running the CPU requests can be sent to any of the available servers and can work around those that are fully loaded or KIA.
He's already dead. Didn't you get the memo? I heard they got a big-wig in Hollywood (Bollywood?) to shoot the scene and toss in some nice special effects. I hear that the moaning and gurgling soundtrack is awesome. They're saving this for the week before the elections.
Seriously though, we all know that they time the release of certain material or their actions to be in their best favor. They don't announce good news on a Friday. They'll sit on it until Monday when they can reach a broader audience of voters and campaign contributors. It's not a big stretch to envision them doing something similar with the death of an adversary.
I would love to a person run for office out of their own pocket, not taking any $$ for any groups or companies or even indiviudals. I'd like to see that person run Whitehouse like a freaking machine. Stop playing political games. Do you damned job. Do the job and get the hell out. Let their performance speak for itself. That would be nice. Of course it would never happen either.
My biggest concern is that Uncle Sam will step in. Junior still has enough time in office to seriously piss of the EU. We're not all that mighty and powerful. Even Conan needed friends.
It's been a long time since I read up on debate techniques but I seem to recall one that's used in the OP's manner. It basically involves making your point while pointing the blame for that particular belief or stance at someone else. Take the OP's comment that I quoted you you re-quoted. He made his point that he believes that a hetorsexual home is better to raise children in, thus implying that homosexual couples make poor parents. He did this while pointing the figure for the accusation at someone else. It's quite obvious from his/her writing that the belief is really their own and that blaming another party (especially a target as easy and as volatile as a religious group) is how they tone down their remarks and avoid a flame-fest. "They said it first. I'm just repeating what those bad people said..." It's an even more effective technique than the strawman.
All good points. I'm not sure what the difference is. I feel that there is one but I can't quite articulate it. Maybe I don't feel that most politicians were as corrupt back then as they seem to be now, which would make their concessions more like the cost of building a country instead of the advancment in society that politicians use it as today. I would imagine that this is part of it. I need to spend some time formulating an opinion on that so that I can better wrap words around it.
Good points, however one has to consider the context of the given time. A lot has changed since then. Were those same men in this modern time with the benefit of knowing and experiencing as much as they'd experienced from the past but of the present I believe they would have eliminated those problems that you cited and more. They also had the problem of appeasing some of the lower colonies who thrived on slavery. They may have felt morally opposed to it but they had to make some concessions to get all the colonies onboard. Unfortunate as it was I don't know that they could have done it any differently in that day and age. I don't think there's a person among us (a reasonable person of course, not an extremist or fundamentalist) that wouldn't immediately fix all of those problems if it were as simple as flicking a switch. Unfortunately change takes time. If given the opportunity, would you rather be a typical woman for a week from the late 1800s or from today? How about an African American in the same periods of time. A homosexual? Things do change. It just takes time.
Not that I'm for this kind of thing but it would be entirely possible for someone to cerate DVD-player (small form-factor computer with a DVD player) that could remove this content on the fly. It could recognize DVDs by a process similar to CDDB. It could then download pre-determined information on which sections to skip. This would actually afford the viewer even greater control over exactly what content they wanted to edit by specifying catergories and downloading the appropriate category information for that given release. Of course I'm against prudish behavior but I could see this as being a plausible substitute for the copyright-violating method. Copyright wouldn't be violated here. The content-skipping producers would simply be creating a document that says playtime MM:SS to MM:SS contain nudity. MM:SS to MM:SS contains graphic language. That protected speach and doesn't violate copyright, just like a DNSBL. The device creators may have some DMCA trouble but if they create the device correctly they should be ok. I'm opposed to censorship but I could understand it if parents of small children or prudes bought such a device. It's a better alternative that subjugating and penalizing all of us for the viewpoints of a few.
Who's being a bigot and bashing a person's spiritual choice now?
Some people (including many in the church I attend) will argue that children raised in a two-parent heterosexual home are more psychologically healthy than those who are not.
I see. So you're saying that the typical American home in which domestic violence runs rampany is the best place to raise a child. The best way to continue domestic violence perhaps but it's hardly the best way to raise a child. I contend that the majority of our youth would be better off living and studying abroad in a boarding school than in the typical American home (and yes I'm an American, though not from the type of American home I'm referring to).
In the end the only solution I can see for the question of gay marriage is to remove government from the question of marriage.
Now this I can agree with.
More likely is that gay marriage will be legalized, and those of us who are religious will have to accept something that we find morally offensive, even though there exists a perfectly logical and sane alternative that actually provides more equality to those who are clamoring for gay marriage in the first place.
No more so than a person with any other religious beliefs that find morally offense at something another groups holds dear.
Prohibition serves us in no way, and likewise the war on drugs in largely ineffective. Are there some who would use crack and herione if _only_ they were legal? Sure, but they are a minority, and I suspect that many companies would continue to use drug testing as a part of the employment agreement, thus making it impractical for a good number of people (think airline pilots: show up high and you're fired, no questions--show evidence of using recreational pharmaceuticals, and you're fired).
Another thing I can agree with. We're on a roll now. Remember though what groups of people lobbied for prohibition and what groups blindly praise the War on Drugs. There are of course exceptions to these groups, those who stand out and express beliefs that do not agree with the group they belond to. Unfortunately all too many are sheep nowadays and can't think for themselves. Of course that's how some leaders of some groups of people maintain influence and control in all camps.
Religion in government will never work. The only time it could work is if it were so obvious that the religion represented the truth of the universe that no one could logically or reasonably deny that it were true. This has never happened, although some Christians predict that this will be the exact situation when Christ returns to the earth (of course if you are atheist or non-Christian, you don't believe that this will ever happen). Even in this situation I suspect that there would be some that would argue that religion and government cannot mix. Certainly, however, as long as there is any doubt about the veracity of any particular religion, there should be no mixing of religion and state.
Hot damn, we're cooking now. We've long since made references to our founding fathers and their ideals but too few people have the slightest idea what they were really talking about. They don't know what those individuals lived through. They don't know what those individuals endured. When the time came for them to mold our infant nation they built upon their experiences and beliefs and built a non-religious government, the lowest possible common denominator that could govern without prejudice, show compassions equally, and represent everyone fairly. Most of the founding fathers were Deists. Some historians point out that many deists in their day would have likely considered themselves agnostic had term been coined at the time (not until the mid-1800s by Thomas Huxley). Nevertheless they strived to create the government of their dreams and suceeded in doing so. Ever since fundamentalist groups have been attacking it from
It depends on the state for one thing. My first gun purchase (a Glock 22) took a couple days. The gun store called in my details off of the form I filled out so that an ATF background check could be done. The operator on the other end gives 1 of 3 responses equating to Yes, No, or we'll call you back. I was delayed for my first 2 purchases (Glock for 2 days and a Marlin 336SS for half a day). After that the law changed and I could take my gun home almost immediately. So it depends. Some states have waiting periods on handgun but not on rifles or shotguns. Other states require finger printing and a spent shell casing to be submitted. Other states require your left nut and right eye (NY). So it depends.
Now if only they'd apply the same ruling to broadcast TV. There's nothing worse than a good movie on a crappy cable channel once it's been edited. I can deal with commercials but this time and content editing bullshit is for the birds. Ever watch "Scarface" on TBS? How about "Blazing Saddles" on ABC Family? How many minutes and lines do you think were edited out of "Die Hard" before TNT aired it?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're making more money than you need then you need to plan for the future. I take it that you're young. It is not too early to start saving for retirement. Yeah, I know it sounds silly to think about retirement when you're in your early 20s. It's worth it though. I won't waste your time with numbers but there are plenty of websites out there that you can refer to. The main thing is to increase your retirement savings. Does your company have any retirement matching (ie, do they match what you contribute up to say 5% of your pay?)? If so then take advantage of it. On top of that increase your retirement contribution to use up some of that excess income. If you are really lucky and are making and putting enough $$$ into your 401k to hit the IRS limit then contribute to an IRA. The limit on that is $5k. Do you still have $$ to play with? First off make sure that you have no debt. Next look into investing in a home instead of paying rent. This is what I'm getting ready to do. Also same up some $$ in a fairly liquid form (not stocks but perhaps bonds) for emergencies. All too few of people have any cash on hand for emergencies such as major vehicle repairs, medical problems, deaths in the family requiring traveling, etc. The whole point of this is that you should take advantage of your good financial years to plan for potentially bad financial years. They happen to everyone so you should be prepared. Plan ahead and you'll have less regret later.
That's where what I just suggested would be useful. Remind the public of what all has transpired over the candidate's term in office and what the opposition's candidate's stances are as well.
I would love to see some put up signs the list what Junior has done right or wrong. These could be billboards, human-placards, etc on the way to/in front of voting stations. If it lists everything equally for say 2 major candidates then no one can say that it's helping on candidate over the other. I think that people need a reminder of what all has happened over any given 4 years. A scoreboard of facts would be useful I think.
The problem as I see it is that Bush is intentionally doing this. This is part of the GOP plan. He's intentionally looking like a total ass (more so than normal). This will cause many of people who normally vote for the GOP to say, "damn, what an asshole". They'll of course still have reservations about voting for the Dems but they still want to vote for somebody. The GOP puts out a slightly more moderate candidate, one who speaking strongly about the war with doubletalk about getting out but also for fighting the good fight. This candidate also takes a more lenient stance on stem cell research, probably the same stance on gays, and a less open stance on religion (so he can come out of the religious closet in office and even further blur the line between church and state). This candidate appeals to all the GOP voters because he's not the fanatical version of Bush and he's a GOP candidate. This will of course win back the hearts and minds of the GOP sheep when in fact the GOP message hasn't changed. It's the exact same message that Junior was spewing back when he ran. He has to veer far to the right to make a distinction between himself and the incoming GOP candidate. Basically he's saying FU to the office and the people; I'm going to help my party keep control of the office by setting up the incoming candidate to smell like a rose compared to me.
Democracy is not a spectator's sport.
I wish I had the funds to post that on billboards across the country in the weeks leading up to an election.
When it comes right down to it there is absolutely no reason why the missing details couldn't have been shared with the OpenSSL people. Getting FIPS 140-2 requires some significant background checks as it is. If Uncle Sam was really worried they could have approached OpenSSL and said "we've found a major problem. We'd like to fix it with you. Before we do we need you and any other person that may be required to work on this problem or know about this problem to submit to a stringent background check prior to us divulging the nature of this security issue.". I'm sure the OSSL would have been glad to have that level of interaction with such an important client.
This is why you don't rely on simple implicit authorization (MAC) for granting network access but instead force your users to VPN deeper into the network to gain access to anything over the wireless network. This brings back authentication and once again gives you authorization controls on a per user basis. Frankly it doesn't matter if your WEP keys (yes, I'm kidding, but then again I'm also serious) are compromised because the VPN tunnel protects all the sensitive traffic. It's a slick solution.
You don't enable 1X on access ports for servers. Your servers should be segregated not only on to a separate VLAN but, in anything but the smallest of networks, onto separate switches. If you want to provide interface security in these subnets you should simply use MAC locking. Also set up a SNMP trap monitoring system to alert you of security violations on these ports.
As far as network printers go you should already know which port any given printer is on since these printers should be in separate VLANs. You should not place a printer in the same VLAN as desktops for security reasons. There have been many rather slick hacks over the years involving taking a printer offline (with a DoS or physically unplugging the printer) so that an insider can become that printer and accept printjobs containing confidential information. No matter how much we preach security and how seriously some companies take security almost no company has a printer clause in their security policy. Ie, how are printjobs containing sensitive information handled? Can they be printed to a printer in an area with a lower security level? How long can a sensitive printout sit in the output bin of a printer? etc. Always place printers in another VLAN. Ideally you'd deny all access to these VLANs except from known print servers. You don't use 802.1X in the printer VLANs. Instead you use MAC locking and ingress/egress ACLs.
Contrary to popular mis-conception IEEE 802.1X is not enabled on every port across the LAN. It is ONLY enabled on access-layer interfaces that face users. You do not enable it on infrastructure ports (obivously) or on server ports. For an auth failure you can default to either no access or you can automaticlaly place that port in a specific VLAN. That VLAN has restricted access across the campus where you can do all sorts of things to it. You can set up a user registration system so that the user can establish a guest pass for a specific amount of time (think hotal guest management software). You can also force it through a VPN termination device such as a firewall or a VPN concentrator. I recommend this for wireless users. That way they have to use VPN to complete AAA and gain access to their internal network resources. You could create a honeynet to see what this user with a failed connection is trying to gain access to. There are all sorts of things you can do.
If your infrastructure doesn't support a technology that you want/need to role out then you're essentially screwed. It happens. In a couple years a new tech will come out that a customer of mine will want to run. This new tech is not available on their hardware they already own, even with a code update. Their 3-year old network will have to be replaced. This comes down to a business decision. Are the added features valuable enough to justify the costs of the forklift upgrade. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That not the decision of us technical people to make. We present the summation to the business people and let them make the call.
A perfect example of this is with IEEE 802.af. 802.af was ratified in December of 2003. Prior to that date all previously shipped PoE devices were pre-standard and many were incompatible with the final standard (such as Cisco's implementation). You spent $250k in 2002 to install a new 10/100 network with redundant GigE backhauls to a partially-meshed distribution layer that has a fully-meshed ATM core. By all accounts it's a nice network. Now you want to deploy VoIP across the network and you're finding that your 2002 switches don't support PoE. They don't support voice VLANs. They have limited QoS
This happens to be a horrible solution. This completely defeats the purposes of Traffic Engineering. Now all traffic is encrypted between IPSec end-points. This eliminated PBR. This eliminates access-layer filtering at L3 and L4. MPLS? What's that? CoS and QoS is effectively defeated as well. If you implement a solution based on this technology then you might was well save yourself some big bucks and start buying dumb switches instead of the entreprise grade gear from one of the big name companies. This is not a good solution for this application. For securing traffic in a DMZ back to the firewall? Sure; that's a slick use of this tech. There are far better established methods and technologies for accomplishing the same thing. Those other ways would also happen to be what we network engineers call "standards".
I think he meant the People for Eating and Torturing Animals. But I could be wrong...
You can't send it back and get a refund. Apple isn't selling you a generic PC. They're selling you a Mac. It's not like Dell selling you a PC with a copy of Microsoft Windows. Apple is selling you a Mac. It runs the MacOS (though I wonder for how much longer they'll take that approach). It's like buying a Chevy Silverado. You can't take ship the tires back to the factory and ask for a refund.
Yeah, I know. Sucks. I wish there was a way around it. I wonder what other countries do...
I think this will quickly take off in the small to medium size companies as well. The tech is really esay to set up. The basic server is now free. Why should a small office buy a new machine just to test a new development product when they can easily, securely, and safely set up a virtual on a slice of a another under-utilized server? At some point they'll realize they need support and they'll buy a support contract with VMWare. At some point they may even step up to ESX. It's a win win situation for everyone.
I have a vision for the next step VMWare might take. I think they'll come up with a way to leech the unused CPU cycles and othe resources off of existing servers without actually putting a VM on that existing server. It sounds weird but let me explain what I mean. To me VMWare works best when you have a machine dedicated to running VMs. I run GSX at home. Nothing else runs on the host itself most of the time. The problem is most companies that want to get into virtual environments probably can't afford to buy a new dual CPU server just to experiment with a technology that they don't necessarily trust. They're going to want to run it on a server they already have. This server will undoubtedly be in production already. They'll install VMWare Server on this box and will greatly limit the amount of resource the virtual can consume. This of course will likely lead to a bad experience with virutalization technology. If something bad doesn't happen then they'll at least be disappointed with the performance. To counter this I'd like to see a piece of software that can be installed on half a dozen production boxes that gives a management box an interface to the CPUs on those production server. This would let you spread around the CPU load of your virtuals much like a beowulf cluster. This would be make migrating to VMWare much easier for most companies in my opinion. They could add numerous servers and a couple high-end workstations to the cluster of machines and slowly but surely remove servers from the cluster and turn it into a new dedicated VMWare server.
The other use of this software is probably the more likely use of it. Most migrating companies aren't going to be able to afford or justify $15-25k on a new billy badass server to host their VMs on. Instead they'll end up with a dozen lower-end existing servers. They'll run a few VMs on this server, a few on that server, etc. If they could simply bond them all together into one cohesive unit they could manage them easier and give the lower-end customers a much more useable product. You might have to dedicate a machine to be the brains of the operation but that wouldn't be that costly. It's a lot more cost-effective to use the dozen or so Dell 1850 and 2850 servers you already own instead of buying a new 6850. This could also be a way to introduce fault-tolerance into your virtual environment. As long as the brain server is running the CPU requests can be sent to any of the available servers and can work around those that are fully loaded or KIA.
Seriously though, we all know that they time the release of certain material or their actions to be in their best favor. They don't announce good news on a Friday. They'll sit on it until Monday when they can reach a broader audience of voters and campaign contributors. It's not a big stretch to envision them doing something similar with the death of an adversary.
I would love to a person run for office out of their own pocket, not taking any $$ for any groups or companies or even indiviudals. I'd like to see that person run Whitehouse like a freaking machine. Stop playing political games. Do you damned job. Do the job and get the hell out. Let their performance speak for itself. That would be nice. Of course it would never happen either.
...would have been to tell the people bitching and moaning to grow up or shut the hell up. Seriously Sony needs to grow a backbone.
My biggest concern is that Uncle Sam will step in. Junior still has enough time in office to seriously piss of the EU. We're not all that mighty and powerful. Even Conan needed friends.
I hate it when I forgot to proofread my posts. I forgot the "n't" on "weren't".
It's been a long time since I read up on debate techniques but I seem to recall one that's used in the OP's manner. It basically involves making your point while pointing the blame for that particular belief or stance at someone else. Take the OP's comment that I quoted you you re-quoted. He made his point that he believes that a hetorsexual home is better to raise children in, thus implying that homosexual couples make poor parents. He did this while pointing the figure for the accusation at someone else. It's quite obvious from his/her writing that the belief is really their own and that blaming another party (especially a target as easy and as volatile as a religious group) is how they tone down their remarks and avoid a flame-fest. "They said it first. I'm just repeating what those bad people said..." It's an even more effective technique than the strawman.
All good points. I'm not sure what the difference is. I feel that there is one but I can't quite articulate it. Maybe I don't feel that most politicians were as corrupt back then as they seem to be now, which would make their concessions more like the cost of building a country instead of the advancment in society that politicians use it as today. I would imagine that this is part of it. I need to spend some time formulating an opinion on that so that I can better wrap words around it.
Good points, however one has to consider the context of the given time. A lot has changed since then. Were those same men in this modern time with the benefit of knowing and experiencing as much as they'd experienced from the past but of the present I believe they would have eliminated those problems that you cited and more. They also had the problem of appeasing some of the lower colonies who thrived on slavery. They may have felt morally opposed to it but they had to make some concessions to get all the colonies onboard. Unfortunate as it was I don't know that they could have done it any differently in that day and age. I don't think there's a person among us (a reasonable person of course, not an extremist or fundamentalist) that wouldn't immediately fix all of those problems if it were as simple as flicking a switch. Unfortunately change takes time. If given the opportunity, would you rather be a typical woman for a week from the late 1800s or from today? How about an African American in the same periods of time. A homosexual? Things do change. It just takes time.
Not that I'm for this kind of thing but it would be entirely possible for someone to cerate DVD-player (small form-factor computer with a DVD player) that could remove this content on the fly. It could recognize DVDs by a process similar to CDDB. It could then download pre-determined information on which sections to skip. This would actually afford the viewer even greater control over exactly what content they wanted to edit by specifying catergories and downloading the appropriate category information for that given release. Of course I'm against prudish behavior but I could see this as being a plausible substitute for the copyright-violating method. Copyright wouldn't be violated here. The content-skipping producers would simply be creating a document that says playtime MM:SS to MM:SS contain nudity. MM:SS to MM:SS contains graphic language. That protected speach and doesn't violate copyright, just like a DNSBL. The device creators may have some DMCA trouble but if they create the device correctly they should be ok. I'm opposed to censorship but I could understand it if parents of small children or prudes bought such a device. It's a better alternative that subjugating and penalizing all of us for the viewpoints of a few.
Who's being a bigot and bashing a person's spiritual choice now?
Some people (including many in the church I attend) will argue that children raised in a two-parent heterosexual home are more psychologically healthy than those who are not.
I see. So you're saying that the typical American home in which domestic violence runs rampany is the best place to raise a child. The best way to continue domestic violence perhaps but it's hardly the best way to raise a child. I contend that the majority of our youth would be better off living and studying abroad in a boarding school than in the typical American home (and yes I'm an American, though not from the type of American home I'm referring to).
In the end the only solution I can see for the question of gay marriage is to remove government from the question of marriage.
Now this I can agree with.
More likely is that gay marriage will be legalized, and those of us who are religious will have to accept something that we find morally offensive, even though there exists a perfectly logical and sane alternative that actually provides more equality to those who are clamoring for gay marriage in the first place.
No more so than a person with any other religious beliefs that find morally offense at something another groups holds dear.
Prohibition serves us in no way, and likewise the war on drugs in largely ineffective. Are there some who would use crack and herione if _only_ they were legal? Sure, but they are a minority, and I suspect that many companies would continue to use drug testing as a part of the employment agreement, thus making it impractical for a good number of people (think airline pilots: show up high and you're fired, no questions--show evidence of using recreational pharmaceuticals, and you're fired).
Another thing I can agree with. We're on a roll now. Remember though what groups of people lobbied for prohibition and what groups blindly praise the War on Drugs. There are of course exceptions to these groups, those who stand out and express beliefs that do not agree with the group they belond to. Unfortunately all too many are sheep nowadays and can't think for themselves. Of course that's how some leaders of some groups of people maintain influence and control in all camps.
Religion in government will never work. The only time it could work is if it were so obvious that the religion represented the truth of the universe that no one could logically or reasonably deny that it were true. This has never happened, although some Christians predict that this will be the exact situation when Christ returns to the earth (of course if you are atheist or non-Christian, you don't believe that this will ever happen). Even in this situation I suspect that there would be some that would argue that religion and government cannot mix. Certainly, however, as long as there is any doubt about the veracity of any particular religion, there should be no mixing of religion and state.
Hot damn, we're cooking now. We've long since made references to our founding fathers and their ideals but too few people have the slightest idea what they were really talking about. They don't know what those individuals lived through. They don't know what those individuals endured. When the time came for them to mold our infant nation they built upon their experiences and beliefs and built a non-religious government, the lowest possible common denominator that could govern without prejudice, show compassions equally, and represent everyone fairly. Most of the founding fathers were Deists. Some historians point out that many deists in their day would have likely considered themselves agnostic had term been coined at the time (not until the mid-1800s by Thomas Huxley). Nevertheless they strived to create the government of their dreams and suceeded in doing so. Ever since fundamentalist groups have been attacking it from
Well put and effective.
It depends on the state for one thing. My first gun purchase (a Glock 22) took a couple days. The gun store called in my details off of the form I filled out so that an ATF background check could be done. The operator on the other end gives 1 of 3 responses equating to Yes, No, or we'll call you back. I was delayed for my first 2 purchases (Glock for 2 days and a Marlin 336SS for half a day). After that the law changed and I could take my gun home almost immediately. So it depends. Some states have waiting periods on handgun but not on rifles or shotguns. Other states require finger printing and a spent shell casing to be submitted. Other states require your left nut and right eye (NY). So it depends.
Now if only they'd apply the same ruling to broadcast TV. There's nothing worse than a good movie on a crappy cable channel once it's been edited. I can deal with commercials but this time and content editing bullshit is for the birds. Ever watch "Scarface" on TBS? How about "Blazing Saddles" on ABC Family? How many minutes and lines do you think were edited out of "Die Hard" before TNT aired it?