In that context you didn't specify private industry, so I think it's fair game. (Plus, private security could still make use of tasers -- not that I'm advocating their use.)
I can agree with your other point in theory, but the cat's already out of the bag, so it's unfortunately slightly idealistic.
I have yet to see an industry that -really- needs a highly maneuverable extremely fast airship... Or gun, or taser, or tear gas, or, well, so many technologies developed by the military.
I can't come up with any other uses for a highly maneuverable aircraft, but law enforcement certainly benefits from your other three examples.
Steve Lindsey, Commander (US Air Force Colonel) Mark Kelly, Pilot (US Navy Commander) Mike Fossum, Mission Specialist (US Air Force Reserves Colonel) Lisa Nowak, Mission Specialist (US Navy Commander) Stephanie Wilson, Mission Specialist (NASA) Piers Sellers, Mission Specialist (NASA) Thomas Reiter, Mission Specialist (some military aircraft background, otherwise affiliated with the European Space Agency)
Brent Jett, Commander (US Navy Captain) Chris Ferguson, Pilot (US Navy Captain) Joe Tanner, Mission Specialist (NASA) Dan Burbank, Mission Specialist (US Coast Guard Commander (and remember, USCG is military)) Steve MacLean, Mission Specialist (Canadian Space Agency) Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, Mission Specialist (US Navy Commander)
Anyone who has an IPv4 address has an entire block of IPv6 addesses. With 6to4 you dont need any support from your ISP (well, as long as they're not actively blocking such traffic).
While this is true, it's still best for any 6to4 tunnels to be as short as possible. Every additional (IPv4) hop adds latency to your IPv6 packets. The sooner it gets back to native IPv6 (and therefore more dynamic routing), the better.
Linux had NAT a long time before iptables existed. Ever heard of ipchains, or even ipfwadm? ipchains was native to the 2.2 kernel, ipfwadm to late 1.3 - 2.0 series. iptables was only introduced for 2.4+.
A bit of digging gave me some rough dates for when NAT was introduced in ipfwadm vs. ipfilter (which I'm assuming would be the reference for FreeBSD). The first mention of IP masquerading in ipfwadm was on or around 1996-05-05, with version 2.0. The first reference I see to NAT in ipfilter is on 1996-02-04. HOWEVER, the ipfilter site says that ipfilter has been part of FreeBSD since version 2.2, which was (according to the Unix Timeline) released on 1997-03-16. (Yes, ipfilter was reported to have been tested as early as FreeBSD 2.0.0, but I'm not sure how stable that was, or exactly when NAT support was introduced.)
I can provide sources if requested. (Funny thing about posting as AC: you don't have to back up your idiotic claims.)
I won't speak for 64-bit x86 support (yet?), as I'm not so intimately familiar with the territory there.
Magic Mirror: Well, technically, you're not a king. Lord Farquaad: Thelonius? [Thelonius the Executioner smashes a small looking glass] Magic Mirror: [nervous] Er, I mean you're not a king YET...
And what's this? An ad (for "DocMonster") that wasn't there before. Advertising opportunity? Interesting.
It's gone now, but eyeballing the source shows some commented-out references. Looks like they're tweaking the page on-the-fly; I've seen some odd rendering changes between reloads. (Yes, I am a mean bastard, kicking them while they're down.)
I don't believe the GP was directly relating PR-filtering to the fifth amendment, only drawing a parallel. I.e.:
It looks suspicious to have the PR department review his answers (what do they have to hide from the public?).
It looks suspicious to plead the fifth amendment (specifically, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,") when detained by authorities (what do you have to hide from the police?).
I've always taken "midwest" to roughly mean "middle of the western world;" it is roughly the center of the (north)western hemisphere.
Merriam Webster suggests that it can be applied to "Ohio & sometimes Kentucky" toward the east. That would certainly include Illinois.
Incidentally, it looks like Chicago is about 700 miles from the nearest Atlantic coastline, and not quite 150 miles east of the Mississippi. Reeeaaal East Coast, yo.
On a more serious note, IRC is no more filterable than any other TCP-based protocol. Block the usual ports? Okay, then someone will set up an ircd on port 80, or 443, or something you wouldn't have thought to block (or can't, because it's a necessary service). If somehow you managed to content-filter it out, then they'd probably just move to some other protocol (or start using SSL, perhaps). It's not like IRC is magic that the bot writers can't do without. They're people, and people are good at solving problems (and causing them, of course).
You can't send a commando squad up to an airliner ("Air Force One" notwithstanding).
Maybe it's been too long, but I'm not recalling a commando squad being sent to board Air Force One. I do recall a scenario where a commando team boarded a passenger jet mid-flight in 'Executive Decision,' though.
Slashdot Mirror
I've upgraded Fedora installs (and from RedHat to Fedora) plenty of times using that command. Apt4rpm, anyone?
However, yum does handle multilib far better than apt. It gets a bit frustrating on sparc64 and x86_64 systems.
Yes, and it has loads of third-party software, right? Right?
Oh. I guess not.
At least biofouling shouldn't be an issue in the East River. I'm not sure anything can live in there.
Really? You might want to let the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition know that; they seem to be a bit confused about it.
I caught that, too. Funnier is that he even mentioned "Salt Lake in '02" in the paragraph after "4 years ago in Nagano." It's 2006. Oops.
In that context you didn't specify private industry, so I think it's fair game. (Plus, private security could still make use of tasers -- not that I'm advocating their use.)
I can agree with your other point in theory, but the cat's already out of the bag, so it's unfortunately slightly idealistic.
I can't come up with any other uses for a highly maneuverable aircraft, but law enforcement certainly benefits from your other three examples.
Good point. This got me to thinking, and my best memories of the subject kept telling me that this was still true. Let's see.
According to NASA's web site, the crew for Expedition 12 consists of:
William McArthur, Commander (retired US Army Colonel)
Valery Tokarev, Flight Engineer 1 and Soyuz Commander (Russian Air Force Colonel)
How about STS-121?
Steve Lindsey, Commander (US Air Force Colonel)
Mark Kelly, Pilot (US Navy Commander)
Mike Fossum, Mission Specialist (US Air Force Reserves Colonel)
Lisa Nowak, Mission Specialist (US Navy Commander)
Stephanie Wilson, Mission Specialist (NASA)
Piers Sellers, Mission Specialist (NASA)
Thomas Reiter, Mission Specialist (some military aircraft background, otherwise affiliated with the European Space Agency)
STS-115?
Brent Jett, Commander (US Navy Captain)
Chris Ferguson, Pilot (US Navy Captain)
Joe Tanner, Mission Specialist (NASA)
Dan Burbank, Mission Specialist (US Coast Guard Commander (and remember, USCG is military))
Steve MacLean, Mission Specialist (Canadian Space Agency)
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, Mission Specialist (US Navy Commander)
I'd say that firms up a military/NASA connection.
While this is true, it's still best for any 6to4 tunnels to be as short as possible. Every additional (IPv4) hop adds latency to your IPv6 packets. The sooner it gets back to native IPv6 (and therefore more dynamic routing), the better.
Yeah, like Linux.
Linux had NAT a long time before iptables existed. Ever heard of ipchains, or even ipfwadm? ipchains was native to the 2.2 kernel, ipfwadm to late 1.3 - 2.0 series. iptables was only introduced for 2.4+.
A bit of digging gave me some rough dates for when NAT was introduced in ipfwadm vs. ipfilter (which I'm assuming would be the reference for FreeBSD). The first mention of IP masquerading in ipfwadm was on or around 1996-05-05, with version 2.0. The first reference I see to NAT in ipfilter is on 1996-02-04. HOWEVER, the ipfilter site says that ipfilter has been part of FreeBSD since version 2.2, which was (according to the Unix Timeline) released on 1997-03-16. (Yes, ipfilter was reported to have been tested as early as FreeBSD 2.0.0, but I'm not sure how stable that was, or exactly when NAT support was introduced.)
I can provide sources if requested. (Funny thing about posting as AC: you don't have to back up your idiotic claims.)
I won't speak for 64-bit x86 support (yet?), as I'm not so intimately familiar with the territory there.
King? I don't think so.
Ow. I'd see a doctor about that if I were you.
It's gone now, but eyeballing the source shows some commented-out references. Looks like they're tweaking the page on-the-fly; I've seen some odd rendering changes between reloads. (Yes, I am a mean bastard, kicking them while they're down.)
Not quite. I'm a non-subscriber, and I managed to get one hit in (awww, a 7!) before it proclaimed they'd been "dugg/slashdotted."
And what's this? An ad (for "DocMonster") that wasn't there before. Advertising opportunity? Interesting.
I would have to say yes.
"Telnet?" I think you misspelled "SSH."
I don't believe the GP was directly relating PR-filtering to the fifth amendment, only drawing a parallel. I.e.:
It looks suspicious to have the PR department review his answers (what do they have to hide from the public?).
It looks suspicious to plead the fifth amendment (specifically, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,") when detained by authorities (what do you have to hide from the police?).
I've always taken "midwest" to roughly mean "middle of the western world;" it is roughly the center of the (north)western hemisphere.
Merriam Webster suggests that it can be applied to "Ohio & sometimes Kentucky" toward the east. That would certainly include Illinois.
Incidentally, it looks like Chicago is about 700 miles from the nearest Atlantic coastline, and not quite 150 miles east of the Mississippi. Reeeaaal East Coast, yo.
The only way I can think of to make it funnier is if the downmods got metamoderated Unfair.
Oh...whatdya know...
Oops, wrong IRC-hating geologist.
:-)
I retract my stick-in-the-mud comment.
Steve.
:-)
You're a stick in the mud.
On a more serious note, IRC is no more filterable than any other TCP-based protocol. Block the usual ports? Okay, then someone will set up an ircd on port 80, or 443, or something you wouldn't have thought to block (or can't, because it's a necessary service). If somehow you managed to content-filter it out, then they'd probably just move to some other protocol (or start using SSL, perhaps). It's not like IRC is magic that the bot writers can't do without. They're people, and people are good at solving problems (and causing them, of course).
Do what you want. I'll be on IRC.
Fortunately, there's always meta-moderation. FWIW, I called it Unfair.
Reading the linked write-up removes that ambiguity. There are six references to "Air Force," and only one to "Army" (in regard to interoperability).