The real test about whether this is warranted is whether other countries will adopt similar bans. The ban on devices from Middle Eastern countries had a half-hearted and variable adoption in the UK and Canada. I also wonder if this is not a ploy of the terrorists. The IRA (Irish terrorist group not a US retirement account) used to phone up the police with fake bomb warnings for major London train stations to cause widespread disruption without actually having to do anything other than once every few years leaving a real but small explosive device just so the police could never ignore their warnings.
If that were the case then were I a terrorist I'd set their intel up to believe that we'd developed a way to turn clothing into explosives to take down planes.
Its even remotely plausible ( read: 'security theater plausible'); nitrocellulose, gun cotton, though I don't know how far you could actually get walking around in a suit made from that stuff.
Actually, since the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, the situation is reversed.
Why do Scottish MPs in Westminster vote on matters that only affect England?
Even before Devolution, English MPs did not (by custom) vote on matters that affect only Scotland.
Google the "West Lothian question"
I thoroughly support independence for England. And, no, thats not because I'm pro-English.
Brexit was a farce, so far as everyone but England was concerned. There was never any point in the Scots, Irish or Welsh even going out to vote. The English cynically use democracy (by popular vote, not talking about the activities of MP's) to control the entire nation. "Oh look, the *majority* of people in the UNITED kingdom voted for this so thats what we'll do then". Fuck that. At least places like Canada, if theres going to be a major constitutional change, all the provinces had better be in agreement.
The problem the English have is that they think they are still a colonial power.
They, mostly, realise that places like NZ are no longer their vassals though and nowadays just see the Scots, Welsh and Irish as their colonies. Its really going to upset the English when the Scots and Irish decide to leave them to it and the English only have the Welsh to pick on. And that won't last.
In the end the English will have what they always dreamed of; an independent England LOL. None of their neighbors will be sad to see them marginalised and poverty stricken.
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
No one is happier that the English voted to leave the EU than the Europeans.
The old Commonwealth countries are going to be highly bemused at the UK coming to them, cap in hand, for some sweet trade deals since, after the UK marginalised the commonwealth those guys have gone and made other trade deals with their (closer) neighbors. The English are about to get a nice lesson in their place in the modern world (and it isn't Empire).
I'm absolutely convinced the legislators who brought the legislation which lead to sayings like "one may as well hang for a sheep as a lamb", and "in for a penny, in for a pound" used exactly the same kind of reasoning.
The Brits have been there before, I just can't figure out why they would think it would work any better this time.
Indeed.
And this time around theres nowhere practical for them to transport criminals to as a penal colony.
But not a false Scotsman, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, who is Greek.
Actually any true Englishman would also agree since they like to refer to themselves as 'British' thus conflating their country (England) and the island their country is on, which is shared with Wales and Scotland.
British governments have been able to *call* the nation a democracy for at least a century or so. But it never has been. Just a good enough facsimile to fool most of the people, most of the time.
Just ask the Scots how much the UK is a democracy. Based on popular votes, even if 100% of Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh all voted one way it'd only take a 55% majority of the English to overrule them.
The UK is just the English plus some vassal states who are basically colonies.
Income variance is good because it encourages people to live in a smaller house, have less recurring expenses, and then it sometimes feels like "yay, I have more money." Well, that is, if they're not an idiot. Then they'd probably just overspend based on the high number and go into debt.
Thats not working out so well in places like Vancouver, where those smaller houses cost $1 million.
Simply make a service much like Twitter with a similar name, but controlled by the users, not a soulless, bought-and-paid for corrupt corporation and it's bullshit owners. Democratize that bitch! Also, while you're at it, the 140 character arbitrary bullshit limit has to go, so maybe increase it to... whatever you want to put in your account profile. Then let other people limit how many characters they want to read, as part of THEIR profile, allowing people to decide for themselves, rathr thn frcng ppl to tlk mr & mr lik ths, bc THS SHT s jst FCKNG anyng!
A police officer could come to your door and demand entry w/o a warrant and you are perfectly within your rights to deny them access and even using force if necessary (not recommended). Probably better to allow them under protest and sort it out not the courts later. Thanks However with a valid warrant it's a different story.
But know you can refuse to comply with an unlawful order but better be certain it's unlawful.
This is kind of how civil forfeiture works in the USA. The cops stop your car, search it, find cash. They declare the cash "Obvious drug money" and take it. You now have to go through lengthy and expensive legal action if you want any chance of getting that cash back.
Kind of like bandits except in uniform and with the backing of the state.
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
Oh gee, no IPV6, only IPV4, what _ever_ will we do? IPV4 only hosts are _such_ a mystery!!!
In this case it is a mystery because the configuration has not been tested by the vendor. Its not that the system needs IPv6 connectivity to the Internet, thats completely different. Its that some applications expect to find a functional IPv6 stack and may react unpredictably if it isn't present. Thats what testing would be for. If the applications and OS were tested in the presence of a disabled IPv6 stack you'd be dead right. But it isn't. So you don't really know how its going to fuck up until YOU test it yourself.
Like I said, good luck. But don't be surprised if things break.
Given that I couldn't care less about homegroup and it's the only thing that I see that breaks when IPV6 is disabled & "netsh interface ipv6 set state disabled" takes 5 seconds, it's a itty bitty teeny tiny sledgehammer. MS can state that it's an unsupported config but why should I care (presently)? If IPV6 becomes necessary in the future for things I need, I'll change my habits but so far? Meh...
It isn't a supported configuration. Microsoft do not test with IPv6 disabled. If you disable it you are on your own, in uncharted territory, with pretty much only blogs to guide you.
When IPV6 is configured on a Windows machine and it is getting & attempting to use AAAA DNS records, resulting in a 30 second timeouts, that's when I diable IPV6: http://blogs.cisco.com/enterpr...
Yeah, it's the client's network that "should" be fixed, but I've given up at tilting at windmills. I'll just tell them that their IPV6 is messed up, disable IPV6 on the server with the issues getting rid of the timeouts and move on.
Thats using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You don't need to disable IPv6 to do that.
netsh interface teredo set state disabled netsh interface isatap set state disabled netsh interface 6to4 set state disabled
These IPV6 tunnels are use than useless in my experience.
Windows Homegroup depends on IPV6 being present & some other users of the machines I use find it useful so it can't be disabled as well all the time but at least it's not trying to tunnel out. When (though it's still rare), the network has IPV6 connectivity it also has IPV6 firewalls so it's less of an issue as well.
At least you didn't advise disabling IPv6 completely, which isn't even a supported configuration any more (in Microsoft products).
ipv6 has been around nearly a decade. any company that doesnt have a competent dual-stack implementation deserves what they get. that having been said the number of vendors that recoil in shock and horror when you ask if they can route, or even support ipv6 is amazing.
The truly terrifying thing is the amount of otherwise competent and knowledgeable IT professionals who are utterly terrified of IPv6 and get elevated blood pressure whenever its mentioned.
Theres a whole generation of IT pros who have come to believe that NAT is the solution to almost all of their security issues, have no use for port blocking firewalls or defense in depth. It wasn't that long ago that desktop workstations often had Internet routeable IP addresses and you had to have actual firewalls on the front end and inside as well.
Nowadays they run their webserver in an RFC1918 range and use DNAT to send the traffic into it, thinking this is more secure than having a firewall and, when they look at IPv6, they see this security blanket as being taken away from them and they retreat into their shells.
If 3 million people is enough to consider that Hillary 'really won' the election then is 30 million people enough to consider these diseases worth fighting?
That's 25-30 million people with 7,000 different diseases. That's about 4k people per disease. They're not researching a single cure for all those 30 million people.
WTF does this have to do with the election or number of votes cast? There's only one person still obsessed with the election results and TFA isn't about him.
Yeah I guess we can characterize individual presidential candidates as diseases... But whats the cure for Hillary or Trumpitis?
When someone will pay a price for a thing, that is the price of the thing. When that someone doesn't really care about the price, because they can just print more money, there is no downward pressure on the price.
It's math, kids.
There are people living in 'luxury apartments', paying 90% of their income into rent not because they want to live in high class apartments but because thats all that is available and its a choice between that and being homeless. Sometimes people are, literally, forced to pay through the nose for goods and services, are given no choice and have to pay the price that is demanded or face life-changing problems from which they are unlikely to recover (homelessness is a good example).
The downward pressure ultimately becomes massive civil unrest and crime, like when in the UK you'd be hung for stealing a loaf of bread and we have the saying "May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb".
By definition, rare diseases are RARE and they wont be making huge numbers of pills to spread out the total cost.
Rare and yet ten times more Americans suffer from them than the margin by which Hillary 'won' the popular vote.
And yet Democrats still whine about that so much you'd think it was a really significant portion of the US population.
If 3 million people is enough to consider that Hillary 'really won' the election then is 30 million people enough to consider these diseases worth fighting?
We have people literally dying to come across our borders to get here. If the US is THAT bad, why are they coming?
Because they are idiots and are sucked in by your propaganda. Same with the UK.
You need to turn your propaganda machine around so that it shows the world what life is really like in the USA (same for UK) so these people get a realistic impression and realize that they actually should go somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
The real test about whether this is warranted is whether other countries will adopt similar bans. The ban on devices from Middle Eastern countries had a half-hearted and variable adoption in the UK and Canada. I also wonder if this is not a ploy of the terrorists. The IRA (Irish terrorist group not a US retirement account) used to phone up the police with fake bomb warnings for major London train stations to cause widespread disruption without actually having to do anything other than once every few years leaving a real but small explosive device just so the police could never ignore their warnings.
If that were the case then were I a terrorist I'd set their intel up to believe that we'd developed a way to turn clothing into explosives to take down planes.
Its even remotely plausible ( read: 'security theater plausible'); nitrocellulose, gun cotton, though I don't know how far you could actually get walking around in a suit made from that stuff.
or else they'd ban "Small, potentially explosive devices"
eg smart phones.
Actually, since the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, the situation is reversed.
Why do Scottish MPs in Westminster vote on matters that only affect England?
Even before Devolution, English MPs did not (by custom) vote on matters that affect only Scotland.
Google the "West Lothian question"
I thoroughly support independence for England. And, no, thats not because I'm pro-English.
Brexit was a farce, so far as everyone but England was concerned. There was never any point in the Scots, Irish or Welsh even going out to vote. The English cynically use democracy (by popular vote, not talking about the activities of MP's) to control the entire nation. "Oh look, the *majority* of people in the UNITED kingdom voted for this so thats what we'll do then". Fuck that. At least places like Canada, if theres going to be a major constitutional change, all the provinces had better be in agreement.
The problem the English have is that they think they are still a colonial power.
They, mostly, realise that places like NZ are no longer their vassals though and nowadays just see the Scots, Welsh and Irish as their colonies. Its really going to upset the English when the Scots and Irish decide to leave them to it and the English only have the Welsh to pick on. And that won't last.
In the end the English will have what they always dreamed of; an independent England LOL. None of their neighbors will be sad to see them marginalised and poverty stricken.
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
No one is happier that the English voted to leave the EU than the Europeans.
The old Commonwealth countries are going to be highly bemused at the UK coming to them, cap in hand, for some sweet trade deals since, after the UK marginalised the commonwealth those guys have gone and made other trade deals with their (closer) neighbors. The English are about to get a nice lesson in their place in the modern world (and it isn't Empire).
I'm absolutely convinced the legislators who brought the legislation which lead to sayings like "one may as well hang for a sheep as a lamb", and "in for a penny, in for a pound" used exactly the same kind of reasoning.
The Brits have been there before, I just can't figure out why they would think it would work any better this time.
Indeed.
And this time around theres nowhere practical for them to transport criminals to as a penal colony.
Any true Scotsman would agree with you.
But not a false Scotsman, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, who is Greek.
Actually any true Englishman would also agree since they like to refer to themselves as 'British' thus conflating their country (England) and the island their country is on, which is shared with Wales and Scotland.
British governments have been able to *call* the nation a democracy for at least a century or so. But it never has been. Just a good enough facsimile to fool most of the people, most of the time.
Just ask the Scots how much the UK is a democracy. Based on popular votes, even if 100% of Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh all voted one way it'd only take a 55% majority of the English to overrule them.
The UK is just the English plus some vassal states who are basically colonies.
FUCK HATE SPEECH
Basically, all speech should be banned because anything anyone says might offend someone.
Income variance is good because it encourages people to live in a smaller house, have less recurring expenses, and then it sometimes feels like "yay, I have more money." Well, that is, if they're not an idiot. Then they'd probably just overspend based on the high number and go into debt.
Thats not working out so well in places like Vancouver, where those smaller houses cost $1 million.
Simply make a service much like Twitter with a similar name, but controlled by the users, not a soulless, bought-and-paid for corrupt corporation and it's bullshit owners. Democratize that bitch! Also, while you're at it, the 140 character arbitrary bullshit limit has to go, so maybe increase it to... whatever you want to put in your account profile. Then let other people limit how many characters they want to read, as part of THEIR profile, allowing people to decide for themselves, rathr thn frcng ppl to tlk mr & mr lik ths, bc THS SHT s jst FCKNG anyng!
Like 'Twatter'?
Pretty please give me your wallet?
You wouldn't want to bring a beat down on yourself, would you?
In the USA the police officer would say "Give me that wallet, its obvious drug money."
Civil forfeiture.
You don't have to comply with unlawful orders.
A police officer could come to your door and demand entry w/o a warrant and you are perfectly within your rights to deny them access and even using force if necessary (not recommended). Probably better to allow them under protest and sort it out not the courts later.
Thanks
However with a valid warrant it's a different story.
But know you can refuse to comply with an unlawful order but better be certain it's unlawful.
This is kind of how civil forfeiture works in the USA. The cops stop your car, search it, find cash. They declare the cash "Obvious drug money" and take it. You now have to go through lengthy and expensive legal action if you want any chance of getting that cash back.
Kind of like bandits except in uniform and with the backing of the state.
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
Yeah, I hate hate speech so much! Oh wait...
Oh gee, no IPV6, only IPV4, what _ever_ will we do? IPV4 only hosts are _such_ a mystery!!!
In this case it is a mystery because the configuration has not been tested by the vendor. Its not that the system needs IPv6 connectivity to the Internet, thats completely different. Its that some applications expect to find a functional IPv6 stack and may react unpredictably if it isn't present. Thats what testing would be for. If the applications and OS were tested in the presence of a disabled IPv6 stack you'd be dead right. But it isn't. So you don't really know how its going to fuck up until YOU test it yourself.
Like I said, good luck. But don't be surprised if things break.
Given that I couldn't care less about homegroup and it's the only thing that I see that breaks when IPV6 is disabled & "netsh interface ipv6 set state disabled" takes 5 seconds, it's a itty bitty teeny tiny sledgehammer. MS can state that it's an unsupported config but why should I care (presently)? If IPV6 becomes necessary in the future for things I need, I'll change my habits but so far? Meh...
It isn't a supported configuration. Microsoft do not test with IPv6 disabled. If you disable it you are on your own, in uncharted territory, with pretty much only blogs to guide you.
Good luck.
When IPV6 is configured on a Windows machine and it is getting & attempting to use AAAA DNS records, resulting in a 30 second timeouts, that's when I diable IPV6: http://blogs.cisco.com/enterpr...
Yeah, it's the client's network that "should" be fixed, but I've given up at tilting at windmills. I'll just tell them that their IPV6 is messed up, disable IPV6 on the server with the issues getting rid of the timeouts and move on.
Thats using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You don't need to disable IPv6 to do that.
netsh interface teredo set state disabled
netsh interface isatap set state disabled
netsh interface 6to4 set state disabled
These IPV6 tunnels are use than useless in my experience.
Windows Homegroup depends on IPV6 being present & some other users of the machines I use find it useful so it can't be disabled as well all the time but at least it's not trying to tunnel out. When (though it's still rare), the network has IPV6 connectivity it also has IPV6 firewalls so it's less of an issue as well.
At least you didn't advise disabling IPv6 completely, which isn't even a supported configuration any more (in Microsoft products).
I have more than enough IPv4 addresses allocated to me and my servers. I don't need IPv6.
Sorry the rest of you have to fight over IPs. I've got plenty (no you can't have them).
Let me guess, you use DNAT extensively?
IPv6 transition mechanisms
ipv6 has been around nearly a decade. any company that doesnt have a competent dual-stack implementation deserves what they get. that having been said the number of vendors that recoil in shock and horror when you ask if they can route, or even support ipv6 is amazing.
The truly terrifying thing is the amount of otherwise competent and knowledgeable IT professionals who are utterly terrified of IPv6 and get elevated blood pressure whenever its mentioned.
Theres a whole generation of IT pros who have come to believe that NAT is the solution to almost all of their security issues, have no use for port blocking firewalls or defense in depth. It wasn't that long ago that desktop workstations often had Internet routeable IP addresses and you had to have actual firewalls on the front end and inside as well.
Nowadays they run their webserver in an RFC1918 range and use DNAT to send the traffic into it, thinking this is more secure than having a firewall and, when they look at IPv6, they see this security blanket as being taken away from them and they retreat into their shells.
If 3 million people is enough to consider that Hillary 'really won' the election then is 30 million people enough to consider these diseases worth fighting?
That's 25-30 million people with 7,000 different diseases. That's about 4k people per disease. They're not researching a single cure for all those 30 million people.
WTF does this have to do with the election or number of votes cast? There's only one person still obsessed with the election results and TFA isn't about him.
Yeah I guess we can characterize individual presidential candidates as diseases... But whats the cure for Hillary or Trumpitis?
When someone will pay a price for a thing, that is the price of the thing. When that someone doesn't really care about the price, because they can just print more money, there is no downward pressure on the price.
It's math, kids.
There are people living in 'luxury apartments', paying 90% of their income into rent not because they want to live in high class apartments but because thats all that is available and its a choice between that and being homeless. Sometimes people are, literally, forced to pay through the nose for goods and services, are given no choice and have to pay the price that is demanded or face life-changing problems from which they are unlikely to recover (homelessness is a good example).
The downward pressure ultimately becomes massive civil unrest and crime, like when in the UK you'd be hung for stealing a loaf of bread and we have the saying "May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb".
By definition, rare diseases are RARE and they wont be making huge numbers of pills to spread out the total cost.
Rare and yet ten times more Americans suffer from them than the margin by which Hillary 'won' the popular vote.
And yet Democrats still whine about that so much you'd think it was a really significant portion of the US population.
If 3 million people is enough to consider that Hillary 'really won' the election then is 30 million people enough to consider these diseases worth fighting?
We have people literally dying to come across our borders to get here. If the US is THAT bad, why are they coming?
Because they are idiots and are sucked in by your propaganda. Same with the UK.
You need to turn your propaganda machine around so that it shows the world what life is really like in the USA (same for UK) so these people get a realistic impression and realize that they actually should go somewhere else.
Yes. That's kind of the point.
Kind of like the UK with Brexit.
"This is a local country, for local people. Theres nothing for you foreigners here!"