Defense is much harder than that. If I shut someone down and take their angles and force them to pass the ball backwards, I get 0 points. If I go for a tackle from a terrible angle and get blown by, I get the same. Even if you take away points, it's not able to count marking someone or positional play shutting things down. It just rewards defenders who are hard tacklers or good at poking a ball free.
NAT and SPI will serve the same purpose in this instance. However, NAT is not required for SPI and is not interesting in a firewall discussion IMO.
NAT merely creates a situation where the packets run into a dead end if not explicitly told to go someplace. SPI is the opposite, where a dead end is created explicitly for a packet that would normally be forwarded.
NAT in all but niche cases serves no purpose with IPV6. A firewall set to filter all inbound packets would serve the same purpose as NAT does today without an added layer of complication.
Look, if you go with a distribution that is modern, you'll have none of those issues unless you go out of your way to the point that you'd have the same problems on Windows. Ubuntu is going to have you use one package manager that will make you not even have to think about binary formats or package formats.
Where exactly are you seeing software that isn't niche that requires any extra work on Linux? I've had to shoe horn software badly made at work into working on Linux. Through Wine and various other methods since I prefer a Linux Desktop. I found it easier than the headache that most people there go through with Windows. Am I just crazy? I consider what I had to do out of my way and annoying as a Linux desktop goes.
Let's kill unborn children, but let violent criminals skirt the death penalty. Let's 'reform' inmates so they can be let out and turn them into repeat offenders.
I agree with your sentiment, but be careful about saying off topic controversial things when making an argument. People will pick up on this and ignore the rest of what you say.
You say you like choice then you seem to make a statement against it in the middle of it. If Hitler (GODWINNED) gave the most perfect speech on how a country can be a peaceful and prosperous nation, a majority would ignore him. Your assertion about abortion being the killing of unborn children does the exact same to your argument for some.
What's the lower limit and how does your city calculate that? If I am driving through your city and going 30 in a 35, is that illegal? If I go 40 in a 35 is that illegal? So, it's not a speed limit there, it's a speed requirement?
Barrack has my support on this issue based on him having the support of Larry Lessig. I believe he'll do the right thing as it comes to what my views are.
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet
Have someone step on your scrotum over and over. I've seen some videos where people like it. You just have to keep going until it gets good, just like everything in life.
2,400 is accurate if you go for the dirt cheap vendors without a support contract from a big company.
24,000 is accurate for a Cisco with all ports being able to be fully subscribed with a contract from someone like IBM or HP. They retail for around 10,000 though.
Your problem is distribution related. You went for a distribution that requires you to be somewhat aware of things from what it sounds like, and that was a mistake. Whoever is helping you choose the distribution picked poorly.
True. The issue here though is that the information they are using isn't being shown to help solve any of the problems that it was meant to. The information was there for 9/11, as I'm sure you know.
Regardless, government is people and they can use information even if there are safeguards in place for things. Look at something like the Plame scandal. That information has penalties for being let out, but it still was and it was damaging. Let's say Johnny government is mad at me because I'm having sex with his wife. How would his personal vendetta be quelled in a way that would not allow him to blackmail me?
Anyways, gathering and processing this information costs money. Even if there is a way to avoid the negatives of it, I personally don't want to foot the bill for the minimal gain over what seems to be a rather functional system that was already in place. Another layer dealing with current information more effectively and acting on it would be preferred in my eyes over more information being gathered.
Anyways, we're not that far off from each other. I just like prattling.
So you would have no problem with the government going through your belongings without a warrant?
The government and a private individual doing it are completely different. I can be aware of a private individual doing something of this nature. And it is illegal if they are caught. The government should be held to the same standard.
I'll agree that I don't have a problem with people knowing what I talk about or do. It's just a barrier from the government being able to exert another level of control. That's why, to me, the government saying they will give us privacy is essential. I can't imagine them needing that information but I can imagine there being a future where it's illegal if I discover I'm attracted to another man or talk about that I was drinking under age. It's just another check. A barrier to prevent government oversight in areas that people don't want them being in.
It's not just that, but to me that is the most important thing.
Are you saying that the expectation of being able to have privacy in our communications from government supervision isn't an essential liberty? We could debate that if you like, but rewording things does not change the meaning...
The original quote obviously was the exact same as yours except that the Franklin quote went on for saying you don't deserve what you were trying to pay for with your freedoms.
I'm not keen on replying to things like this, but I'm really confused with what you are talking about...
If you look at what embryonic stem cell development has already discovered you'll find huge value in it. Stopping funding for embryonic stem cell development because adult stem cells are further due to being a more mature area of research is quite short sighted. That's not up for debate and your argument of it not being mature is a moot point. It's known that there has been little success with embryonic stem cells as it applies to actual cures. But the research stemming from that has the potential to be much greater than other avenues.
Since you're a diabetic, wouldn't you want what is most likely to be the cure? Why tell someone that they can't get funding for their theory on embryonic stem cells being able to develop a cure for type 1 diabetes and force them to either find a way to do it with adult or to just pick something else. That's what being narrow minded does. Stifle research.
It's not an issue of the value of paying for someone's life after having done something to them but a positive blessing. If you could provide more material on the nature and origin of Leviticus 27 that would be nice, but from what I am going on it would appear that this is a cost for some sort of vow or blessing.
Leaving off unborn and newborn babies is important with this in the sense that it includes people besides those. This leads towards the idea that they are not considered to be valued by god in the same way that others are. As I said, the bible has little to say about abortion and this is one of the few passages that can be seen as having anything to do with it. It just becomes intriguing because of the simple fact that the barrier for the vow is 1 month of age.
A nutty interpretation of this would be to correlate it to say that it goes either direction for abortion. That either because of the lack of mentioning it, it means that god sees newborns the same as unborns and because a newborn baby is a person god sees unborns as a person or that god sees them the same and a baby before one month old isn't a person and can be killed.
Anyways, I don't care to go back and look at how the bible got into this so I can comment more intelligently, but I don't believe the bible should become an issue for either side of this debate no matter how strongly one believes in it.
Oh, and thanks for leading off calling me a troll. The fact still stands that if you view that passage, you can correlate it in the way I saw it when I posted. That you misinterpreted as meaning murder.
And, about the old law... I realize how inane old law is (much as current law is) but I still stand by the fact that it was a rather retarded thing to have included in the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/info/x/3755m3/
"With up to 48 cores..."
Defense is much harder than that. If I shut someone down and take their angles and force them to pass the ball backwards, I get 0 points. If I go for a tackle from a terrible angle and get blown by, I get the same. Even if you take away points, it's not able to count marking someone or positional play shutting things down. It just rewards defenders who are hard tacklers or good at poking a ball free.
Fully Informed Jury Association
NAT and SPI will serve the same purpose in this instance. However, NAT is not required for SPI and is not interesting in a firewall discussion IMO.
NAT merely creates a situation where the packets run into a dead end if not explicitly told to go someplace. SPI is the opposite, where a dead end is created explicitly for a packet that would normally be forwarded.
NAT in all but niche cases serves no purpose with IPV6. A firewall set to filter all inbound packets would serve the same purpose as NAT does today without an added layer of complication.
Seismic scale for Europe?
I know nothing about Europe or Seismic Scales... But, if that is correct, then WTF?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software Because Windows only has one installer.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/41531554-d5ef-4f2c-8fb9-149bdc5c8a701033.mspx because Windows has only one binary.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Top-10-Windows-7-Features-3-XP-Mode/1243378978 because different versions of Windows all work the same way.
These are all chosen for you by whoever makes the software. Or you can compile it yourself on Windows. http://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/BuildingWinPidgin
Look, if you go with a distribution that is modern, you'll have none of those issues unless you go out of your way to the point that you'd have the same problems on Windows. Ubuntu is going to have you use one package manager that will make you not even have to think about binary formats or package formats.
Where exactly are you seeing software that isn't niche that requires any extra work on Linux? I've had to shoe horn software badly made at work into working on Linux. Through Wine and various other methods since I prefer a Linux Desktop. I found it easier than the headache that most people there go through with Windows. Am I just crazy? I consider what I had to do out of my way and annoying as a Linux desktop goes.
I agree with your sentiment, but be careful about saying off topic controversial things when making an argument. People will pick up on this and ignore the rest of what you say.
You say you like choice then you seem to make a statement against it in the middle of it. If Hitler (GODWINNED) gave the most perfect speech on how a country can be a peaceful and prosperous nation, a majority would ignore him. Your assertion about abortion being the killing of unborn children does the exact same to your argument for some.
What's the lower limit and how does your city calculate that? If I am driving through your city and going 30 in a 35, is that illegal? If I go 40 in a 35 is that illegal? So, it's not a speed limit there, it's a speed requirement?
Or is there is a lower limit posted?
That's true.
Barrack has my support on this issue based on him having the support of Larry Lessig. I believe he'll do the right thing as it comes to what my views are.
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
Check it out. Page 2.
First portion:
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the
most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of
network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet
Have someone step on your scrotum over and over. I've seen some videos where people like it. You just have to keep going until it gets good, just like everything in life.
Evince is a strong offering and it is available on MIPS. It's probably my favorite PDF and postscript program for viewing.
Link to evince on Debian package search for MIPS
Check out 2.0 and let me know. If there is a problem, we can fix it.
1350 IBM Linux cluster team. xCAT for pwning.
2,400 is accurate if you go for the dirt cheap vendors without a support contract from a big company. 24,000 is accurate for a Cisco with all ports being able to be fully subscribed with a contract from someone like IBM or HP. They retail for around 10,000 though.
http://www.gameriot.com/blogs/SK-Gaming-my-Hearthstone/New-Deathknight-Info-Gameplay-features-and-WallpapersScreenshots-etc Posted by the best rogue in World of Warcraft, no less.
Standing up to the government and large corporations is a "left wing" thing?
I didn't know science was a team sport.
Your problem is distribution related. You went for a distribution that requires you to be somewhat aware of things from what it sounds like, and that was a mistake. Whoever is helping you choose the distribution picked poorly.
We're talking about the code or the coder?
True. The issue here though is that the information they are using isn't being shown to help solve any of the problems that it was meant to. The information was there for 9/11, as I'm sure you know.
Regardless, government is people and they can use information even if there are safeguards in place for things. Look at something like the Plame scandal. That information has penalties for being let out, but it still was and it was damaging. Let's say Johnny government is mad at me because I'm having sex with his wife. How would his personal vendetta be quelled in a way that would not allow him to blackmail me?
Anyways, gathering and processing this information costs money. Even if there is a way to avoid the negatives of it, I personally don't want to foot the bill for the minimal gain over what seems to be a rather functional system that was already in place. Another layer dealing with current information more effectively and acting on it would be preferred in my eyes over more information being gathered.
Anyways, we're not that far off from each other. I just like prattling.
So you would have no problem with the government going through your belongings without a warrant?
The government and a private individual doing it are completely different. I can be aware of a private individual doing something of this nature. And it is illegal if they are caught. The government should be held to the same standard.
I'll agree that I don't have a problem with people knowing what I talk about or do. It's just a barrier from the government being able to exert another level of control. That's why, to me, the government saying they will give us privacy is essential. I can't imagine them needing that information but I can imagine there being a future where it's illegal if I discover I'm attracted to another man or talk about that I was drinking under age. It's just another check. A barrier to prevent government oversight in areas that people don't want them being in.
It's not just that, but to me that is the most important thing.
Are you saying that the expectation of being able to have privacy in our communications from government supervision isn't an essential liberty? We could debate that if you like, but rewording things does not change the meaning...
The original quote obviously was the exact same as yours except that the Franklin quote went on for saying you don't deserve what you were trying to pay for with your freedoms.
I'm not keen on replying to things like this, but I'm really confused with what you are talking about...
If you look at what embryonic stem cell development has already discovered you'll find huge value in it. Stopping funding for embryonic stem cell development because adult stem cells are further due to being a more mature area of research is quite short sighted. That's not up for debate and your argument of it not being mature is a moot point. It's known that there has been little success with embryonic stem cells as it applies to actual cures. But the research stemming from that has the potential to be much greater than other avenues.
Since you're a diabetic, wouldn't you want what is most likely to be the cure? Why tell someone that they can't get funding for their theory on embryonic stem cells being able to develop a cure for type 1 diabetes and force them to either find a way to do it with adult or to just pick something else. That's what being narrow minded does. Stifle research.
It's not an issue of the value of paying for someone's life after having done something to them but a positive blessing. If you could provide more material on the nature and origin of Leviticus 27 that would be nice, but from what I am going on it would appear that this is a cost for some sort of vow or blessing.
Leaving off unborn and newborn babies is important with this in the sense that it includes people besides those. This leads towards the idea that they are not considered to be valued by god in the same way that others are. As I said, the bible has little to say about abortion and this is one of the few passages that can be seen as having anything to do with it. It just becomes intriguing because of the simple fact that the barrier for the vow is 1 month of age.
A nutty interpretation of this would be to correlate it to say that it goes either direction for abortion. That either because of the lack of mentioning it, it means that god sees newborns the same as unborns and because a newborn baby is a person god sees unborns as a person or that god sees them the same and a baby before one month old isn't a person and can be killed.
Anyways, I don't care to go back and look at how the bible got into this so I can comment more intelligently, but I don't believe the bible should become an issue for either side of this debate no matter how strongly one believes in it.
Oh, and thanks for leading off calling me a troll. The fact still stands that if you view that passage, you can correlate it in the way I saw it when I posted. That you misinterpreted as meaning murder.
And, about the old law... I realize how inane old law is (much as current law is) but I still stand by the fact that it was a rather retarded thing to have included in the bible.