Given a choice between multiple-static IP addresses form your ISP, and a firewall box that can deal with them, or an off-the-shelf $35 Linksys router at BestBuy, which one do you think the average consumer would rather buy?
The $35 linksys piece of crap can (at least in theory) "deal" with real IP addresses even more easily than it can deal with private ones. The linksys already has a firewall. All you'd be doing is removing the NAT functionality. Everything else can stay the same. The device would be even simpler.
In other words, by keeping IPv4, we can sell NAT boxes (which we're already selling in huge numbers.. the wireless network hub in my den is a prime example.) Cisco has a big investment in building hardware to take care of IP space limitiations.
And they can and will still keep selling these firewall/router/"NAT boxes" as you call them because people will still need a firewall. That is the primary function of all these things you're referring to.
Why does every device you own have to have a publicly accessible IP? I know I wouldn't want my network storage or printers to be publicly accessible, the same would go for my appliances, I'd rather have a single check point so I can restrict that anyway.
Having a publicly accessible IP does not mean that device is publicly accessible. It also doesn't mean you can't have a single check point or that you can't restrict traffic. This is what firewalls do.
Few do (or are configured to do) protocol level analysis of say HTTP traffic looking for sql injection which would really give better security than a nat device would.
Even if the firewalls aren't looking at application layer traffic and are merely concerning themselves with network and transport layer activity (which is all 99% of firewalls out there do) that is still far better than NAT alone.
Nat is just an easy way to say: inbound: Deny all, outbound: Allow all
You can't say that at all with NAT. NAT doesn't "deny" anything, it just rewrites network addresses or does not rewrite them.
NAT is no replacement for a firewall, but used in conjunction with them it can add an extra layer of protection.
No it doesn't. A firewall alone can block all connections from one side to the other. NAT doesn't add anything to that at all. It doesn't block anything, it just rewrites network addresses.
Because a supernatural "explanation" can't really explain anything. We can't study, truly understand and know how a supernatural force really works, and that's what science is all about.
The bible doesn't meet that definition. It was written by men who can't be firsthand eye witnesses to their own creation. It also isn't authoritative - its accuracy isn't widely acknowedged. Quite the contrary, that's what this whole story is about.
There is a fundamental difference between abortion and the death penalty. As taught by the Church, Abortion is murder (taking of an innocent life), but the death penalty is not (presumably, the person is guilty).
The problem with that interpretation of that commandment is who decides who is guilty? Some humans do. So under that interpretation the commandment basically boils down to "kill whomever you want, whenever you want, as long as enough of you think it is OK".
Re:Before I disagree with you...
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
Does it not matter in your oppinion at all how addictive the substance is, or how strongly it is marketed to kids/teeagers/adults? Both of these have no effect on free will? As long as there is even a small bit of choice left, then "people made their own choice to die a slow death"?
You had full free will and full knowledge of the results when you decided to start.
My machine really has nothing on it worth compromising. All data like that is on a server that is physically secured. I SSH/RDC/Dameware into to the servers.
And what do you type the passwords of those servers you SSH/RDC/Dameware into?
until I asked him if it worked on Firefox. He laughed, looked at me and said, "No. Why would I support a browser with less than 1% of the market share?" I corrected him - 11% according to recent articles and as high as 40% on many of my clients' websites. His response was something along the lines of "when it gets to 40% across the board, I'll consider supporting it."
He doesn't have to "support" firefox, or IE or any one browser. He just has to write standard, correct HTML and do a little more testing in different browsers.
Really, what costs more, loosing even 1% of his online sales, or doing the above?
So what you're saying is that it never happens, because you haven't seen it happen recently... except for the times when you have?
No. Not what I said at all. Let's break it down a little simpler for you:
- I find his statement rather unlikely in my experience.
- I asked him to substantiate his claim, which he hasn't.
- Almost all of the times I have seen Internet traffic in the US pass through a public network were when the endpoints themselves were public institutions. Think about that for a minute. It doesn't negate my suspicion at all.
And to clarify "recently": let's say the past 10 years.
Ah, but web content often passes through public networks to get from the server to you.
It does? How often is often? Give examples please. I can't remember seeing a traceroute in the US in recent history that touched anything but private networks unless one of the endpoints was a public institution.
The main reason I don't like separation, at least as it was implemented with FreeBSD in my expereince, is the lack of complete resource separation. You can have one virtual "machine" go crazy and chew up all available memory, or use up all entries in the process table. Those are just a couple of examples. There are all kinds of other little shared, exhaustible resources that get shared between all VMs and permit one VM to interfere with another very easily. Like file descriptors, shared memory segment names for example. When all your VMs have their own kernel, none of that is a problem. Can vserver guarantee separation of *every* exhaustible resource in the kernel?
Scientific hypothesis almost never arise out of science.
Hypotheses aren't scientific. "Science" is knowledge, and also the process you use to turn the hypothesis into knowledge. If something non-scientific (like scripture) is a part of that process (ie, you assume certain things to be true based upon it), then the process isn't science and neither is the result.
Only if "Christian ideas are unscientific" is true.
That is true. Christian ideas are based on dogma and lore. Dogma and lore are not scientific.
It is possible for [...] interpretation of scientific observations to be guided by scripture.
No it isn't. If your scientific observation is guided by something other than a scientific process, then by definition it isn't a scientific observation.
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like.
The question is, what right does the school have to limit what the students do at home, on their own time?
The school isn't limiting what the students do on their own time. It doesn't have a right to. The students can go right on ahead blogging if they (or their parents actually) damn well please. The school can't prevent them from doing it.
The students however do not have any right to attend that school. It is a private institution. They can allow or deny any students they want whenever they want for just about any reason they want, including having a blog.
Well, do you consider being part of a large social problem (drugs and what they make people do) injuring others?
By taking drugs, they are not injuring others. Theft and violence are actions which injure others and those things are already rightfully illegal.
You don't have to injire someone specific, you can fuck things up for society in general too.
Yes, you do have to injure someone specific. "fucking things up for society in general" is too vague and subjective of a concept to base any law on. Lots of people say all kinds of things are fucking up society in general... homosexuality, video games, porn, athiesm, democrats...
I never said I wanted to live in a free society. I want to live in a sensibly structured, democratic society. Anarchism works fine if there's only one person, but because of the flaws of humanity (greed, stupidity, malice, insanity) we need rules and punishment for those that break them.
And I never said I wanted to live in anarchy. The free society I described wasn't anarchy. I said people in such a society should be free to do whatever they want IF "they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in the course of their actions".
And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have fun doing crack instead. So, stfu. Just because everyone and their sister smokes pot in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Do you want to live in a free society or not? If you want a free society, then you have to believe that it is ok for people to do crack or "cool stuff", as long as that's what they wanted to do (and they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in the course of their actions).
A society that is only free do to certain arbitrary things that some people want it to do is not a free one.
Slashdot Mirror
The $35 linksys piece of crap can (at least in theory) "deal" with real IP addresses even more easily than it can deal with private ones. The linksys already has a firewall. All you'd be doing is removing the NAT functionality. Everything else can stay the same. The device would be even simpler.
And they can and will still keep selling these firewall/router/"NAT boxes" as you call them because people will still need a firewall. That is the primary function of all these things you're referring to.
Having a publicly accessible IP does not mean that device is publicly accessible. It also doesn't mean you can't have a single check point or that you can't restrict traffic. This is what firewalls do.
Even if the firewalls aren't looking at application layer traffic and are merely concerning themselves with network and transport layer activity (which is all 99% of firewalls out there do) that is still far better than NAT alone.
You can't say that at all with NAT. NAT doesn't "deny" anything, it just rewrites network addresses or does not rewrite them.
No it doesn't. A firewall alone can block all connections from one side to the other. NAT doesn't add anything to that at all. It doesn't block anything, it just rewrites network addresses.
Because a supernatural "explanation" can't really explain anything. We can't study, truly understand and know how a supernatural force really works, and that's what science is all about.
The bible doesn't meet that definition. It was written by men who can't be firsthand eye witnesses to their own creation. It also isn't authoritative - its accuracy isn't widely acknowedged. Quite the contrary, that's what this whole story is about.
The bible doesn't meet that definition. It was written by men who can't be firsthand eye witnesses to their own creation. It a authoritative.
What exactly is a "primary source"?
The problem with that interpretation of that commandment is who decides who is guilty? Some humans do. So under that interpretation the commandment basically boils down to "kill whomever you want, whenever you want, as long as enough of you think it is OK".
You had full free will and full knowledge of the results when you decided to start.
And what do you type the passwords of those servers you SSH/RDC/Dameware into?
He doesn't have to "support" firefox, or IE or any one browser. He just has to write standard, correct HTML and do a little more testing in different browsers.
Really, what costs more, loosing even 1% of his online sales, or doing the above?
Yes, as a matter of fact it is.
s/him/you/g. My bad.
No. Not what I said at all. Let's break it down a little simpler for you:
- I find his statement rather unlikely in my experience.
- I asked him to substantiate his claim, which he hasn't.
- Almost all of the times I have seen Internet traffic in the US pass through a public network were when the endpoints themselves were public institutions. Think about that for a minute. It doesn't negate my suspicion at all.
And to clarify "recently": let's say the past 10 years.
It does? How often is often? Give examples please. I can't remember seeing a traceroute in the US in recent history that touched anything but private networks unless one of the endpoints was a public institution.
The main reason I don't like separation, at least as it was implemented with FreeBSD in my expereince, is the lack of complete resource separation. You can have one virtual "machine" go crazy and chew up all available memory, or use up all entries in the process table. Those are just a couple of examples. There are all kinds of other little shared, exhaustible resources that get shared between all VMs and permit one VM to interfere with another very easily. Like file descriptors, shared memory segment names for example. When all your VMs have their own kernel, none of that is a problem. Can vserver guarantee separation of *every* exhaustible resource in the kernel?
Hypotheses aren't scientific. "Science" is knowledge, and also the process you use to turn the hypothesis into knowledge. If something non-scientific (like scripture) is a part of that process (ie, you assume certain things to be true based upon it), then the process isn't science and neither is the result.
That is true. Christian ideas are based on dogma and lore. Dogma and lore are not scientific.
No it isn't. If your scientific observation is guided by something other than a scientific process, then by definition it isn't a scientific observation.
Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like.
6-8 people how? GTA1 and 2 both only supported 4 max.
The school isn't limiting what the students do on their own time. It doesn't have a right to. The students can go right on ahead blogging if they (or their parents actually) damn well please. The school can't prevent them from doing it.
The students however do not have any right to attend that school. It is a private institution. They can allow or deny any students they want whenever they want for just about any reason they want, including having a blog.
By taking drugs, they are not injuring others. Theft and violence are actions which injure others and those things are already rightfully illegal.
Yes, you do have to injure someone specific. "fucking things up for society in general" is too vague and subjective of a concept to base any law on. Lots of people say all kinds of things are fucking up society in general... homosexuality, video games, porn, athiesm, democrats...
And I never said I wanted to live in anarchy. The free society I described wasn't anarchy. I said people in such a society should be free to do whatever they want IF "they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in the course of their actions".
Do you want to live in a free society or not? If you want a free society, then you have to believe that it is ok for people to do crack or "cool stuff", as long as that's what they wanted to do (and they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in the course of their actions).
A society that is only free do to certain arbitrary things that some people want it to do is not a free one.