NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology.
Personally, I'd say that it does a little more. As long as your router drops incoming requests on the floor instead of forwarding them, it protects your LAN from port scanners. That, of course, doesn't make it a firewall, but it is a step in the right direction. There's nothing NAT can do to protect you if you click on the wrong link because whatever comes back is a response, not a request, but still, for the average office, it's better than nothing.
I think you've gotten things backwards here. If I sue somebody because they called me a murderer, it's not up to me to prove I'm not; it's up to them (if that's the defense they select) to prove either that I am, or that they had good reason to believe that I'd committed murder.
I think you misunderstood me. It's not that the defense wouldn't be allowed, but, AIUI it might not be sufficient if they're considered to be defamatory. As an example, even if you have photographic evidence to back up your story that a certain politician is a transvestite, an English jury can still find you guilty if they consider that it blackened the man's reputation badly enough. One reason, I gather, that their press is so restrained when reporting on the lives of the wealthy is that they have to be very careful to avoid having somebody with deep pockets decide that they don't like having their private lives exposed...
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
The article you link to says, among other things, "In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work." Note that there is nothing in that quote that implies that the statements must be false, as there would be in the US. If an English newspaper were to publish an article showing that a prominent politician was a transvestite, with photographs, they'd still be sued for libel, and they'd lose because what they published defamed said politician and that's all that matters there. Yes, you can try to prove that what you printed was true, but if the truth is sufficiently defamatory, it won't be enough.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
I've checked further since posting that. In England, the truth is considered an allowable defense, and it is, in fact, an affirmative defense because the statements are presumed false until proven true. Even then, you can still lose your case because in England, libel and slander are about defamation, and if you've defamed somebody be telling the truth, it's still defamation.
If you will read the Wikipedia article on English law about libel, you will see that the truth is only an allowable defense there, not an absolute defense as it is in America. In fact, in an English court, the statements are assumed to be false unless the defense proves them to be true.
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
I guess when you look for evidence of something and find absolutely nothing, it's okay not to abandon the theoretical reasons why you looked for it in the first place.
That's correct. Lack of evidence isn't enough to disprove a theory; what you need is evidence that directly contradicts the theory. In the case of gravity waves, it might be observation of an event that should produce detectable gravity waves, combined with our not detecting them.
And, while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that what Popper taught us was that a theory was useless unless there's a way to falsify it, at least in theory. If you can find a way to show that any conceivable experimental results can be viewed as confirming the theory, it's useless because it can't be tested. In the case of gravity waves, they're but one of many things predicted by General Relativity, and one of the few that's not been observed as yet.
Good question. I gather, however, that the problem is getting enough energy out of the water to pay for the cost of the equipment, and there may just not be enough there to make it economically feasible.
Then again I also never understood why if nuclear waste is still putting off energy, why not just use the waste as an energy source? Storing the waste in pools that have to be constantly chilled just seems so backasswards.
I've asked that question myself, for many years. For the most part, people would just say, "No, they don't do that," and ignore my response of, "Why not?"
Finally, I got an answer: those pools get near the boiling point of water, but no further, and you're not going to get enough energy for the generators to pay for themselves unless they're running on super heated steam. Yes, there's a fair amount of energy there, but it's not concentrated enough to use. Sigh!
If you have a router between you and the campus network, you are required to remove it and directly connect to the cable modem or other gateway device that they provide. I think the policy is bollocks, but judging from the stories I've heard of how inept some of the L1 techs are, maybe it is better that way...
I did tech support for an ISP, and they had the same policy: if you were behind a router and had connectivity issues, we'd ask you to connect one computer directly to the modem, bypassing the router. The reason for this was to eliminate the possibility that the router was causing the trouble. If you still couldn't browse while connected directly to the router, it was either the modem or outside your equipment; if not, the router itself was the issue, and Not Our Problem. (We didn't supply routers, and had no way of knowing how to configure them.)
For example, in an Engineering program, there might be some sort of CAD program which is Windows only, or in an architecture or visual arts/graphical design program, they may require some software which is only available on a Mac.
Now that leads to an interesting question: would it be possible to sue the school for discrimination because they're unfairly penalizing students based on their choice of computer and/or OS? And if so, could you win?
Not as much as you think. For a 5"/54 naval rifle, the service live of a barrel was about 1500 rounds. Of course, the average round weighed over 50 pounds, and that was just the shell because the shell and powder were inserted separately.
I'm Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. We were doing shore bomb back in '72 during the Eastertide Offensive. Back then, we didn't have time to try fixing things that weren't broke. I remember, once, the but-plate on our 5"/54 broke, and a machinists mate made a new one out of a bearing blank and saved us from having to go all the way to Sasebo and back for a new one. In one WestPac, we not only wore out the barrel of our gun, we used up half the service life of its replacement.
And yes, #6 does have a name: Carl (his fiancee would know his name, after all).
His first name may have been Carl, but his last name was Drake. The only reason they didn't use it during the series is that it was done by a different production company than the one that'd done Secret Agent, and they couldn't get permission. In fact, if you can find and read the novels that were written about the series, one of them starts, "Drake woke up."
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd say that it does a little more. As long as your router drops incoming requests on the floor instead of forwarding them, it protects your LAN from port scanners. That, of course, doesn't make it a firewall, but it is a step in the right direction. There's nothing NAT can do to protect you if you click on the wrong link because whatever comes back is a response, not a request, but still, for the average office, it's better than nothing.
I think you've gotten things backwards here. If I sue somebody because they called me a murderer, it's not up to me to prove I'm not; it's up to them (if that's the defense they select) to prove either that I am, or that they had good reason to believe that I'd committed murder.
I think you misunderstood me. It's not that the defense wouldn't be allowed, but, AIUI it might not be sufficient if they're considered to be defamatory. As an example, even if you have photographic evidence to back up your story that a certain politician is a transvestite, an English jury can still find you guilty if they consider that it blackened the man's reputation badly enough. One reason, I gather, that their press is so restrained when reporting on the lives of the wealthy is that they have to be very careful to avoid having somebody with deep pockets decide that they don't like having their private lives exposed...
The result, obviously, would depend on the laws of the country in question.
Interesting: one part of Wikipedia claims that the truth is an absolute defense in England, another claims it's not.
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
The article you link to says, among other things, "In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work." Note that there is nothing in that quote that implies that the statements must be false, as there would be in the US. If an English newspaper were to publish an article showing that a prominent politician was a transvestite, with photographs, they'd still be sued for libel, and they'd lose because what they published defamed said politician and that's all that matters there. Yes, you can try to prove that what you printed was true, but if the truth is sufficiently defamatory, it won't be enough.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
I've checked further since posting that. In England, the truth is considered an allowable defense, and it is, in fact, an affirmative defense because the statements are presumed false until proven true. Even then, you can still lose your case because in England, libel and slander are about defamation, and if you've defamed somebody be telling the truth, it's still defamation.
If you will read the Wikipedia article on English law about libel, you will see that the truth is only an allowable defense there, not an absolute defense as it is in America. In fact, in an English court, the statements are assumed to be false unless the defense proves them to be true.
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
That's correct. Lack of evidence isn't enough to disprove a theory; what you need is evidence that directly contradicts the theory. In the case of gravity waves, it might be observation of an event that should produce detectable gravity waves, combined with our not detecting them.
And, while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that what Popper taught us was that a theory was useless unless there's a way to falsify it, at least in theory. If you can find a way to show that any conceivable experimental results can be viewed as confirming the theory, it's useless because it can't be tested. In the case of gravity waves, they're but one of many things predicted by General Relativity, and one of the few that's not been observed as yet.
If so, they may have been lucky. In China, teachers can't watch porn in class. In Soviet Russia, porn watched teachers!
Wouldn't that be a gaggle of Google interns?
To paraphrase Iago, "Who steals my identity steals trash."
Good question. I gather, however, that the problem is getting enough energy out of the water to pay for the cost of the equipment, and there may just not be enough there to make it economically feasible.
I've asked that question myself, for many years. For the most part, people would just say, "No, they don't do that," and ignore my response of, "Why not?"
Finally, I got an answer: those pools get near the boiling point of water, but no further, and you're not going to get enough energy for the generators to pay for themselves unless they're running on super heated steam. Yes, there's a fair amount of energy there, but it's not concentrated enough to use. Sigh!
I did tech support for an ISP, and they had the same policy: if you were behind a router and had connectivity issues, we'd ask you to connect one computer directly to the modem, bypassing the router. The reason for this was to eliminate the possibility that the router was causing the trouble. If you still couldn't browse while connected directly to the router, it was either the modem or outside your equipment; if not, the router itself was the issue, and Not Our Problem. (We didn't supply routers, and had no way of knowing how to configure them.)
Now that leads to an interesting question: would it be possible to sue the school for discrimination because they're unfairly penalizing students based on their choice of computer and/or OS? And if so, could you win?
Not as much as you think. For a 5"/54 naval rifle, the service live of a barrel was about 1500 rounds. Of course, the average round weighed over 50 pounds, and that was just the shell because the shell and powder were inserted separately.
While covered with hot grits.
I'm Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. We were doing shore bomb back in '72 during the Eastertide Offensive. Back then, we didn't have time to try fixing things that weren't broke. I remember, once, the but-plate on our 5"/54 broke, and a machinists mate made a new one out of a bearing blank and saved us from having to go all the way to Sasebo and back for a new one. In one WestPac, we not only wore out the barrel of our gun, we used up half the service life of its replacement.
If so, things have really changed. Back when I was in Uncle Sam's Navy, sonny, it was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
His first name may have been Carl, but his last name was Drake. The only reason they didn't use it during the series is that it was done by a different production company than the one that'd done Secret Agent, and they couldn't get permission. In fact, if you can find and read the novels that were written about the series, one of them starts, "Drake woke up."