For an office of say 10 employees, a SOHO router is just fine. It's cheap, easy to configure, and solid state. They can also be mounted on a telco baseboard along with the rest of the equipment too. Why cobble together a used PC (or new) to run M0n0wall for just 10 users? Not worth the time IMHO. Just plug in a WiFi Linksys box and be done with it!
If anyone has a DGL-4500 router, and experiences constant lockups with it (forced to power cycle the unit); your not alone. Apparently, there is a bug with DNS forwarding that started with firmware rev 1.21. It's been since July 2009, and the best you can hope for is an update still in beta. We are talking about their newest high-end gaming router here with extra features that make a nice small office router too.
As it stands, users of this model are furious. Some are threatening a class-action lawsuit against them. By all means, please read through the D-Link forum before you think about buying one of their products. http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=144.0
If they want to isolate sensitive data, it needs to be on its own internet network. The only access to it is from stand-alone workstations or via terminal sessions. E-mail, web access, IM, etc are done through another network and separate computers connected to it. This way, all sensitive data access can be logged. If you must take a copy of the data outside the building, printing a hard copy is the only way. Oh, and it must be signed by management prior to walking out the door with it.
This can be done without question. It's all a matter of how much time and money they want to throw against it. There is no reason to be quivering over the little shit and spinning in circles over it.
If any of you remember playing MUSHA (Aleste), Herzog Zwei or Lords of Thunder, you know what I'm talking about. Best music I've heard on both the Sega Genesis and TG16 systems.
They wanted a show of military force against the Soviet Union, but Reagan understood this as their desire to fulfill Biblical prophecies of Armageddon, which he feared.
That's quite a hyperbolic statement. Sorry, can't let that stand. The real reason conservatives balked at the meeting with Gorbachev was two-fold. 1: It would be an acceptance of what the Soviet Union was doing as "OK" in order to strike deals with the US. 2: Fear of providing concessions to reward bad behavior.
What needs to be understood is that (internationally) peace negotiations almost always means both sides coming to a compromise. While that sounds all warm and fuzzy, it could also mean the US being left to a disadvantage far more than the Soviet Union. It would be as though we sat down with al qaeda leadership and brokered deals with them. In doing so, we would be acknowledging some of their actions and allow some of it to continue. In effect, we would be inadvertently sponsoring their terrorism and tactics.
I'm not saying we (US) shouldn't be pursuing peaceful relations around the world, but not if it means acknowledging bad behavior and brokering concessions.
The Chinese Communists seem to be smarter than that. If they see an alternative organization rising, even a benign one like Falun Gong, they stomp it out. So adopting Western religious dogma strikes me as strange.
That's a very astute observation. But there are reasons for this. Falun Gong was founded in 1992. They protested against the government in 1999. In effect, they pissed off the wrong people at the wrong time and have since been on the run for their lives. Christianity however has a very long history in China. Early reports go back to 400AD, but mainly before and after the Cultural Revolution. To this day, it's been thought 30 million Christians exist inside China. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) is the only government-sanctioned Christian organization in China.
Basically, the CCP tried snuffing out Christianity but failed. A repeat of history that happened in Rome to some extent. The CCP also felt it was best to align with a religion that best melded with Communism. After all, Jesus (and his teachings) was a socialist. It wont be long before China too has their own "Constantine" as president.
Well, my response was silly in purpose. It was drive home a point by being absurd.
As for tethering the Moon to the Earth, not going to happen nor would it be feasible to do so. However, you might be able to tether an asteroid. You just have to find the right one and have a way of bringing it back here. Safely.
As an American conservative who's visits China, I can confirm this. While Shanghai is the most western-liberal as they get, they're still Chinese...err...Shanghainese in fact.
Everything from social outlook on life to economic, the Chinese are truly conservative. I mean, these people are capitalists at heart and it shows on the streets and within companies when doing business with them. The constant haggling over prices gets old and frustrating however. But you don't get anymore capitalistic in terms of spirit (they don't expect handouts from others). What's ironic however, is that the old generation still view Mao Zedong as a great man. I'm not sure they really know the scope of how much pain and suffering his policies inflicted, but all that they DO remember is that he was once a great leader.
And there you have it. If it's one thing that conservatives around the world have in common, it's that they believe in social order, stability, and also a sense of morality. But above all else, conservatives look to one thing as the most valuable. That's leadership and direction. From presidents, kings, and religious figures, they want a northern start that guides them as a unified force to obtain those goals. At least in America, that's why we love/d Ronald Reagan.
You can't, and that's the point. I wont name names. But, there are many politicians whom like nothing better than to treat this as a civil issue. Reason being so they don't have to deal with the political ramifications of warfare.
You can thank our episode with Vietnam for that. Or more specifically, (then) modern media in all it's gruesome detail.
1.26 seconds. That's less than the space between me and the car in front of me.
Please. The Moon drives around the Earth in a predictable orbit at the same speed. I'm fairly sure they're safe. Besides, nothing has happened yet for 4.53 billion years. Must be nice to have cheap insurance.
...if you're willing to acknowledge that the US should be the policeman of the world, you should also be for the US joining the ICC (unless of course you believe the US should effectively become the judge and jury of the world as well).
Oh hell no. I don't want the US policing the world as it's expensive in both treasure and lives. Unfortunately, when you're a super power there will always be assholes out there willing to take you down a notch (king-of-the-mountain effect, everyone hates the king). So upholding the mantle of isolationism is not possible for us. There are (and will always be) global threats. Sometimes, you just have to deal wit them pro-actively.
As for joining the ICC; never. The moment we give up our sovereignty is the moment we can no longer ensure the security of our nation. That's exactly what you would be giving up regardless of it being in whole or in part.
As well, neocons should have been quite honest in their intentions to seize Saddam for crimes against humanity instead of bolstering a rather fictitious threat.
Saddam was always a threat, but Bush had no real reason for invading. So I agree with you. He should have been honest about the true intentions in that we need a launch pad to keep Iran at bay and keep the rest of the middle east from becoming radicalized. Also, ensuring the oil fields are safe and put back into full production.
Had bush really been honest about our true needs of national security, I think a lot more people would have cut him some slack.
Well let's see... Saddam already gassed a Kurdish population that resulted in over 5,000 deaths. Let's also not forget the mass graves that numbered to be in the hundreds of thousands.
He may not have been after nuclear weapons, but would you sit idly by and take his word for it? No sane/rational person would. In fact, after his atrocities on the human race, every breath of oxygen he took afterward was an insult to Humanity.
All true. However, lets not discount the valuable lessons (both socially and professionally) learned when working for an SMB. If all you do is work for a large mega-corp, you will more often than not be just another cog in the machine. While your role may be important, it's also very limited and compartmentalized.
I highly recommend working for an SMB when your younger to obtain those skills early on, then go after a mega-corp for smooth sailing. Should you be out on the street without a job later in life, you can feel confident in your abilities to find a new one. For better or worse, you might even have the skill-set to start your own company or small partnership.
There is a huge difference between anti-trust action, and State take-over of a company. We've already seen this happen to the Banking and Auto industry. Both have been epic failures on all fronts! Do we as a nation want the Federal Gov taking over the direction of how Intel conducts business and even production?
If any of you said "Yes" to my last question, then you are a Facist/Statist and should be drug out on the street and shot IMHO!!! This cannot be allowed to stand.
Won't be long before we (any nation really) has robotic spider mines. Imagine them communicating with each other in pack and relaying GPS location data. If one finds a target, they start to zero in on the victim. Imagine being out in the field and seeing one of these bastards running along and then hopping on to your fellow soldier just prior to detonation.
Don't know about the rest of you, but "Oh fuck" would be the last thing going through my mind after seeing something like that.
First off, that was an EPIC FAIL on your part. Pulling MSNBC for commentary? You might as well have quoted Media Matters.
DO you need a transcript?
No need. I have it right here.
RUSH: Here’s President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn’t want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.
Where in the hell did you get the idea he was courting blacks from that comment? Sounds like Rush was explaining the potential politicization of the issue. Why? Who the hell knows from that sound-bite. For all we know, it was to not make the same (proceved or otherwise) that GWB did with Katrina.
Is there a reason you use the (Republican Party created) term "Democrat party", just out of curiosity?
Yes, because they're anything BUT democratic. Just look up voter fraud and intimidation. Here's a video recording of the later in 2008 election cycle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
The other day I listened to this man opine about how it would be irresponsible to expect taxpayers to pay for a lifesaving operation if you could not afford it yourself. Just die if you can't pay was the message.
Healthcare debate is a huge one. But in short, his view is that -we- as individuals should be paying into the systems and making individual choices when financially able to do so. However, he's against letting the Federal Government be the sole arbiter of support between you and your doctor. I agree with him as many others do. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.
but I do think that programs like his need to be VERY clearly advertised as entertainment and nothing more.
Well actually, he's both entertaining AND informative. His ratings speak for themselves.
...and really, a Dittohead? Barack the Magic Negro and all that? I find that very sad.
Actually, the term "Magic Negro" was coined in an article written by the LA Times. In fact, you can read that very article at this link.
Oh ya, I remember Op-Chaos. Who could forget that.
For those too lazy to read the Wiki, it was about pitting Hillary against Obama to create a fracture among the Democrat caucus. The idea being that McCain could move in for the political kill and win the election from a weakened party. So, that was the theory anyways.
But the door swings both ways. Do you remember when the Hillary and Reid signed a letter to the CEO of Clear Channel? No, seriously. It's right here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppO7hF7ugY
I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?
Care to explain yourself, or are you that much of a coward?
Slashdot Mirror
I pulled a reverse DNS lookup on it. It's static, and points back to servage.net in Germany. But wait, there's more...
Look at all of these registered Domains and where they point to. http://www.robtex.com/ip/77.232.92.199.html
Clearly the AC wanted readers on Slashdot to become useful idiots in a DOS attack. Not me.
For an office of say 10 employees, a SOHO router is just fine. It's cheap, easy to configure, and solid state. They can also be mounted on a telco baseboard along with the rest of the equipment too. Why cobble together a used PC (or new) to run M0n0wall for just 10 users? Not worth the time IMHO. Just plug in a WiFi Linksys box and be done with it!
If anyone has a DGL-4500 router, and experiences constant lockups with it (forced to power cycle the unit); your not alone. Apparently, there is a bug with DNS forwarding that started with firmware rev 1.21. It's been since July 2009, and the best you can hope for is an update still in beta. We are talking about their newest high-end gaming router here with extra features that make a nice small office router too.
As it stands, users of this model are furious. Some are threatening a class-action lawsuit against them. By all means, please read through the D-Link forum before you think about buying one of their products.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=144.0
Your company is doing it wrong.
If they want to isolate sensitive data, it needs to be on its own internet network. The only access to it is from stand-alone workstations or via terminal sessions. E-mail, web access, IM, etc are done through another network and separate computers connected to it. This way, all sensitive data access can be logged. If you must take a copy of the data outside the building, printing a hard copy is the only way. Oh, and it must be signed by management prior to walking out the door with it.
This can be done without question. It's all a matter of how much time and money they want to throw against it. There is no reason to be quivering over the little shit and spinning in circles over it.
Well, you can lock down IE to some extent. Hope the following link helps.
http://www.nwnetworks.com/iezones.htm
If any of you remember playing MUSHA (Aleste), Herzog Zwei or Lords of Thunder, you know what I'm talking about. Best music I've heard on both the Sega Genesis and TG16 systems.
*sniff*
What, no version for Windows???
That's quite a hyperbolic statement. Sorry, can't let that stand. The real reason conservatives balked at the meeting with Gorbachev was two-fold. 1: It would be an acceptance of what the Soviet Union was doing as "OK" in order to strike deals with the US. 2: Fear of providing concessions to reward bad behavior.
What needs to be understood is that (internationally) peace negotiations almost always means both sides coming to a compromise. While that sounds all warm and fuzzy, it could also mean the US being left to a disadvantage far more than the Soviet Union. It would be as though we sat down with al qaeda leadership and brokered deals with them. In doing so, we would be acknowledging some of their actions and allow some of it to continue. In effect, we would be inadvertently sponsoring their terrorism and tactics.
I'm not saying we (US) shouldn't be pursuing peaceful relations around the world, but not if it means acknowledging bad behavior and brokering concessions.
That's a very astute observation. But there are reasons for this. Falun Gong was founded in 1992. They protested against the government in 1999. In effect, they pissed off the wrong people at the wrong time and have since been on the run for their lives. Christianity however has a very long history in China. Early reports go back to 400AD, but mainly before and after the Cultural Revolution. To this day, it's been thought 30 million Christians exist inside China. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) is the only government-sanctioned Christian organization in China.
Basically, the CCP tried snuffing out Christianity but failed. A repeat of history that happened in Rome to some extent. The CCP also felt it was best to align with a religion that best melded with Communism. After all, Jesus (and his teachings) was a socialist. It wont be long before China too has their own "Constantine" as president.
Well, my response was silly in purpose. It was drive home a point by being absurd.
As for tethering the Moon to the Earth, not going to happen nor would it be feasible to do so. However, you might be able to tether an asteroid. You just have to find the right one and have a way of bringing it back here. Safely.
As an American conservative who's visits China, I can confirm this. While Shanghai is the most western-liberal as they get, they're still Chinese...err...Shanghainese in fact.
Everything from social outlook on life to economic, the Chinese are truly conservative. I mean, these people are capitalists at heart and it shows on the streets and within companies when doing business with them. The constant haggling over prices gets old and frustrating however. But you don't get anymore capitalistic in terms of spirit (they don't expect handouts from others). What's ironic however, is that the old generation still view Mao Zedong as a great man. I'm not sure they really know the scope of how much pain and suffering his policies inflicted, but all that they DO remember is that he was once a great leader.
And there you have it. If it's one thing that conservatives around the world have in common, it's that they believe in social order, stability, and also a sense of morality. But above all else, conservatives look to one thing as the most valuable. That's leadership and direction. From presidents, kings, and religious figures, they want a northern start that guides them as a unified force to obtain those goals. At least in America, that's why we love/d Ronald Reagan.
You can't, and that's the point. I wont name names. But, there are many politicians whom like nothing better than to treat this as a civil issue. Reason being so they don't have to deal with the political ramifications of warfare.
You can thank our episode with Vietnam for that. Or more specifically, (then) modern media in all it's gruesome detail.
Please. The Moon drives around the Earth in a predictable orbit at the same speed. I'm fairly sure they're safe. Besides, nothing has happened yet for 4.53 billion years. Must be nice to have cheap insurance.
Same thing.
And I was knowledgeable of the fact that the west had him and his country on lockdown since the Gulf War
Haha, you're very funny!
Oh hell no. I don't want the US policing the world as it's expensive in both treasure and lives. Unfortunately, when you're a super power there will always be assholes out there willing to take you down a notch (king-of-the-mountain effect, everyone hates the king). So upholding the mantle of isolationism is not possible for us. There are (and will always be) global threats. Sometimes, you just have to deal wit them pro-actively.
As for joining the ICC; never. The moment we give up our sovereignty is the moment we can no longer ensure the security of our nation. That's exactly what you would be giving up regardless of it being in whole or in part.
Saddam was always a threat, but Bush had no real reason for invading. So I agree with you. He should have been honest about the true intentions in that we need a launch pad to keep Iran at bay and keep the rest of the middle east from becoming radicalized. Also, ensuring the oil fields are safe and put back into full production.
Had bush really been honest about our true needs of national security, I think a lot more people would have cut him some slack.
Bedwetting neocons sure as hell did.
Well let's see... Saddam already gassed a Kurdish population that resulted in over 5,000 deaths. Let's also not forget the mass graves that numbered to be in the hundreds of thousands.
He may not have been after nuclear weapons, but would you sit idly by and take his word for it? No sane/rational person would. In fact, after his atrocities on the human race, every breath of oxygen he took afterward was an insult to Humanity.
All true. However, lets not discount the valuable lessons (both socially and professionally) learned when working for an SMB. If all you do is work for a large mega-corp, you will more often than not be just another cog in the machine. While your role may be important, it's also very limited and compartmentalized.
I highly recommend working for an SMB when your younger to obtain those skills early on, then go after a mega-corp for smooth sailing. Should you be out on the street without a job later in life, you can feel confident in your abilities to find a new one. For better or worse, you might even have the skill-set to start your own company or small partnership.
There is a huge difference between anti-trust action, and State take-over of a company. We've already seen this happen to the Banking and Auto industry. Both have been epic failures on all fronts! Do we as a nation want the Federal Gov taking over the direction of how Intel conducts business and even production?
If any of you said "Yes" to my last question, then you are a Facist/Statist and should be drug out on the street and shot IMHO!!! This cannot be allowed to stand.
No one pays attention to Fox anyway
Don't let the facts stand in the way here. Ok?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html
1997? Damn! I had no idea. I can only imagine what they've got now. Scary stuff I'm sure. BTW, thanks for the info.
Won't be long before we (any nation really) has robotic spider mines. Imagine them communicating with each other in pack and relaying GPS location data. If one finds a target, they start to zero in on the victim. Imagine being out in the field and seeing one of these bastards running along and then hopping on to your fellow soldier just prior to detonation.
Don't know about the rest of you, but "Oh fuck" would be the last thing going through my mind after seeing something like that.
First off, that was an EPIC FAIL on your part. Pulling MSNBC for commentary? You might as well have quoted Media Matters.
No need. I have it right here.
RUSH: Here’s President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn’t want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.
Where in the hell did you get the idea he was courting blacks from that comment? Sounds like Rush was explaining the potential politicization of the issue. Why? Who the hell knows from that sound-bite. For all we know, it was to not make the same (proceved or otherwise) that GWB did with Katrina.
Yes, because they're anything BUT democratic. Just look up voter fraud and intimidation. Here's a video recording of the later in 2008 election cycle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
Healthcare debate is a huge one. But in short, his view is that -we- as individuals should be paying into the systems and making individual choices when financially able to do so. However, he's against letting the Federal Government be the sole arbiter of support between you and your doctor. I agree with him as many others do. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.
Well actually, he's both entertaining AND informative. His ratings speak for themselves.
Actually, the term "Magic Negro" was coined in an article written by the LA Times. In fact, you can read that very article at this link.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story
Rush Limbaugh thought it was entertaining to have a parody song created to mock the issue. Below is the link to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyPaivOARM
Ruch Limbaugh also defended himself regarding the "Magic Negro" bit. Blow is the link to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBgRiHYrs0&feature=related
Oh ya, I remember Op-Chaos. Who could forget that.
For those too lazy to read the Wiki, it was about pitting Hillary against Obama to create a fracture among the Democrat caucus. The idea being that McCain could move in for the political kill and win the election from a weakened party. So, that was the theory anyways.
But the door swings both ways. Do you remember when the Hillary and Reid signed a letter to the CEO of Clear Channel? No, seriously. It's right here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppO7hF7ugY
I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?
Care to explain yourself, or are you that much of a coward?