I pay for 2 static IP addresses from my ISP, but using OpenBSD I can actually use 4. Here's how it works:
* DSL router is in bridge mode. (Routing and NAT are handled by my OpenBSD box)
* My ISP assigns me a/30 subnet. Normally this would mean only 2 "useable" IP addresses because 1 would be used for the default gateway and 1 for the broadcast address. Instead, all 4 IP addresses are added as aliases to the PPPoE interface.
* NAT is performed using pf. (In my case, I have multiple internal LAN's, each one NAT'd to a different external address).
OpenBSD with pf makes a fantastic router/firewall. I'm sure the same thing can be done with other OS's, I just happen to find pf to be very good. OpenBSD's documentation is also great.
I was in Ganges Harbour (British Columbia) many years ago when a jellyfish bloom was underway. Rowing in a small wooden boat, I could see that the jellyfish were slowly floating toward the surface, then slowly floating back down. Each time one touched the surface it made a small, circular ripple. So many of these ripples were occurring, the surface of the water looked like it was raining, and for each jellyfish that happened to be touching the surface, there were dozens visible lower down. This was the case for miles and miles. The total number of jellyfish was unimaginable. It was like rowing through jellyfish soup.
The point is that while the underlying nature of their universe as a sphere is unavailable to them because they cannot escape it to see the bigger picture, they can still infer that because Euclid's rules of geometry don't work there must be something going on that they can't see.
Why would they believe in "Euclid's rules" to begin with, given that such rules would not describe the universe they live in? Or, to phrase it another way, if Euclid had grown up in such a universe, would he not have developed different rules that do describe that universe?
And? It's perfectly possible to disagree with some of what these documents claim.
You're missing the point. I am not arguing that no one can disagree with these principles, but that it's a bit much to call someone "out of their mind" for agreeing.
You're out of your mind. Rights exist only because and to the extent that people recognize them, particularly governments that are in a position to defend or deny them...
Your idea of rights is the complete opposite of the ideas upon which the United States was founded.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
People who agree with these principles believe that their rights exist with or without the existence of any government. Many people, including non-Americans like myself, consider this Declaration to be among the most eloquent and profound documents ever written. To label its adherents as "out of their minds" seems a rather dim point of view.
When money is stolen like this, it must be transferred to an account somewhere. Why is it not a simple matter to trace where the funds were transferred to and go after them?
My impression (based on a talk by Theo years ago) was that in their initial audit they went through the entire source tree and fixed every bug as they found them. I don't know about subsequent audits or current practice.
OpenBSD takes the approach of proactive code audits and of fixing all bugs found, even those that have no apparent potential for exploitation. This has really paid off over the years. Often when vulnerabilities came to light, they were found to not affect OpenBSD because the underlying bug had already been fixed.
For years now, when checking for DNS resolution and basic Internet connectivity from whatever network I'm in, my first quick test has been "ping altavista.com". Year after year, I trusted that if the Internet connection was working, I'd get a response. Altavista never let me down:)
I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.
The person calling himself Surveillance Camera Guy was absolutely hassling people in my opinion. In one controversial instance, he sat down at a small table outside a coffee shop with a man who was talking on his cell phone, and proceeded to record the man on video. Not surprisingly, the man asked what Camera Guy was doing. Camera Guy's repeated response was an inane "It's OK - it's just a video" or something like that. The victim calmly and politely asked him to take his camera elsewhere, stating that he was having a private conversation, but eventually become quite angry that Camera Guy would not respect his request for privacy.
A lot of commenters ridiculed the victim because he was expecting to have a "private conversation" in a public space. I wonder how these commenters would react to a stranger recording their phone conversations? It's one thing to be casually overheard talking on a phone in public. It's another thing for some jerk to deliberately encroach in someone's personal space and sit there recording their conversation.
Some people have interpreted Camera Guy's stunts as an artistic commentary on life in a surveillance society. I call bullshit. At one point he tells a victim something like "Why would you object to me video recording you? The store you just walked out of has video surveillance cameras, yet you weren't bothered by that". There is a world of difference between a passive camera system that indiscriminately records video (and not audio) of anyone who walks past, and a guy who deliberately singles out individual passersby, encroaches on them in a manner that is deliberately intended to make them uncomfortable, refuses to answer meaningfully why he is doing it, records both video and audio, and then posts the videos online for the sake of ridiculing the victim.
We have certain accepted modes of behaviour to enable us to get along together as a society, such as respect for people's personal space, even in public. To deliberately cross these boundaries, merely for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, is neither clever or noteworthy. Camera Surveillance Guy was being a rude little asshole for the sake of his own amusement. Youtube was correct to consider his actions as harassment.
I don't understand why you're replying to my post telling me that the article is about a fusion reactor. That is precisely the point I was making. Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent?
The CRA is not claiming a tax on "all transactions". They're claiming a tax on capital gains and income. If you make a transaction that results in a chunk of cash coming into your possession, or the equivalent in material goods, the value of that gain is considered taxable income. It has absolutely nothing to do with the medium of exchange. The CRA is not taxing BitCoin per se; they are taxing profits. They don't care whether you're using BitCoin or not. They're merely pointing out that using BitCoin as a medium of exchange does not confer some kind of exemption from taxes due.
On the heels of a terrorist attack in Boston, and after calmly watching these guys for over a year, the RCMP make arrests just as the Canadian government just happens to be debating a new anti-terrorism law in parliament. For certain political interests, it seems rather convenient to have the al-Queda bogeyman appear in Canada at this precise moment.
FWIW, we have seen precedent for the Prime Minister's Office (illegally) influencing the actions of the RCMP.
Excel actually does flag certain types of unwanted inconsistencies. For example, create a column of cells where each equals double the cell to its left. Then change the formula for one cell so that it triples the cell to its left. Excel will put a little flag on that cell which displays the following clicked:
"The formula in this cell differs from the formulas in this area of the spreadsheet".
Slashdot Mirror
I pay for 2 static IP addresses from my ISP, but using OpenBSD I can actually use 4. Here's how it works:
OpenBSD with pf makes a fantastic router/firewall. I'm sure the same thing can be done with other OS's, I just happen to find pf to be very good. OpenBSD's documentation is also great.
I was in Ganges Harbour (British Columbia) many years ago when a jellyfish bloom was underway. Rowing in a small wooden boat, I could see that the jellyfish were slowly floating toward the surface, then slowly floating back down. Each time one touched the surface it made a small, circular ripple. So many of these ripples were occurring, the surface of the water looked like it was raining, and for each jellyfish that happened to be touching the surface, there were dozens visible lower down. This was the case for miles and miles. The total number of jellyfish was unimaginable. It was like rowing through jellyfish soup.
The point is that while the underlying nature of their universe as a sphere is unavailable to them because they cannot escape it to see the bigger picture, they can still infer that because Euclid's rules of geometry don't work there must be something going on that they can't see.
Why would they believe in "Euclid's rules" to begin with, given that such rules would not describe the universe they live in? Or, to phrase it another way, if Euclid had grown up in such a universe, would he not have developed different rules that do describe that universe?
And? It's perfectly possible to disagree with some of what these documents claim.
You're missing the point. I am not arguing that no one can disagree with these principles, but that it's a bit much to call someone "out of their mind" for agreeing.
You're out of your mind. Rights exist only because and to the extent that people recognize them, particularly governments that are in a position to defend or deny them...
Your idea of rights is the complete opposite of the ideas upon which the United States was founded.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
People who agree with these principles believe that their rights exist with or without the existence of any government. Many people, including non-Americans like myself, consider this Declaration to be among the most eloquent and profound documents ever written. To label its adherents as "out of their minds" seems a rather dim point of view.
the greatest keyboard shortcut ever is:
CTRL-ALT-DownArrow
:)
When money is stolen like this, it must be transferred to an account somewhere. Why is it not a simple matter to trace where the funds were transferred to and go after them?
please learn the difference between "convent" and "convenient". I am not a religious person and I have no intention of ever becoming a monk.
Monks live in a monastery. Nuns live in a convent.
Another Linux distro is launched. What news!
My impression (based on a talk by Theo years ago) was that in their initial audit they went through the entire source tree and fixed every bug as they found them. I don't know about subsequent audits or current practice.
Paying people's wages is almost the original computer application.
I believe tabulating census data was the original computer application.
OpenBSD takes the approach of proactive code audits and of fixing all bugs found, even those that have no apparent potential for exploitation. This has really paid off over the years. Often when vulnerabilities came to light, they were found to not affect OpenBSD because the underlying bug had already been fixed.
Way to keep your response on par with your nick.
For years now, when checking for DNS resolution and basic Internet connectivity from whatever network I'm in, my first quick test has been "ping altavista.com". Year after year, I trusted that if the Internet connection was working, I'd get a response. Altavista never let me down :)
I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.
The person calling himself Surveillance Camera Guy was absolutely hassling people in my opinion. In one controversial instance, he sat down at a small table outside a coffee shop with a man who was talking on his cell phone, and proceeded to record the man on video. Not surprisingly, the man asked what Camera Guy was doing. Camera Guy's repeated response was an inane "It's OK - it's just a video" or something like that. The victim calmly and politely asked him to take his camera elsewhere, stating that he was having a private conversation, but eventually become quite angry that Camera Guy would not respect his request for privacy.
A lot of commenters ridiculed the victim because he was expecting to have a "private conversation" in a public space. I wonder how these commenters would react to a stranger recording their phone conversations? It's one thing to be casually overheard talking on a phone in public. It's another thing for some jerk to deliberately encroach in someone's personal space and sit there recording their conversation.
Some people have interpreted Camera Guy's stunts as an artistic commentary on life in a surveillance society. I call bullshit. At one point he tells a victim something like "Why would you object to me video recording you? The store you just walked out of has video surveillance cameras, yet you weren't bothered by that". There is a world of difference between a passive camera system that indiscriminately records video (and not audio) of anyone who walks past, and a guy who deliberately singles out individual passersby, encroaches on them in a manner that is deliberately intended to make them uncomfortable, refuses to answer meaningfully why he is doing it, records both video and audio, and then posts the videos online for the sake of ridiculing the victim.
We have certain accepted modes of behaviour to enable us to get along together as a society, such as respect for people's personal space, even in public. To deliberately cross these boundaries, merely for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, is neither clever or noteworthy. Camera Surveillance Guy was being a rude little asshole for the sake of his own amusement. Youtube was correct to consider his actions as harassment.
I don't understand why you're replying to my post telling me that the article is about a fusion reactor. That is precisely the point I was making. Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent?
Almost anything is a nuclear reactor if you play with the definition. There are isotopes decaying in my thumb right now. It's a nuclear reactor.
But it's not a fusion reactor. If you want to trivialize what the kid did, at least compare apples to apples.
we've only understood the principle of floatation for just over 2,000 years.
The electrical current slowly ramped up to about 1 milliamp—a tiny fraction of the voltage of an AA battery.
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between amperage and voltage.
This guy may call himself a rapper, but his arrest has nothing to do with "lyrics". He posted a (very) threatening rant on Facebook.
FTA:
"So was I wrong?" wrote Schneier. "Maybe. Okay, probably."
Check your ego and stop waffling. If you're wrong, say you're wrong. Not maybe. Not probably. Just wrong.
The CRA is not claiming a tax on "all transactions". They're claiming a tax on capital gains and income. If you make a transaction that results in a chunk of cash coming into your possession, or the equivalent in material goods, the value of that gain is considered taxable income. It has absolutely nothing to do with the medium of exchange. The CRA is not taxing BitCoin per se; they are taxing profits. They don't care whether you're using BitCoin or not. They're merely pointing out that using BitCoin as a medium of exchange does not confer some kind of exemption from taxes due.
On the heels of a terrorist attack in Boston, and after calmly watching these guys for over a year, the RCMP make arrests just as the Canadian government just happens to be debating a new anti-terrorism law in parliament. For certain political interests, it seems rather convenient to have the al-Queda bogeyman appear in Canada at this precise moment.
FWIW, we have seen precedent for the Prime Minister's Office (illegally) influencing the actions of the RCMP.
Excel actually does flag certain types of unwanted inconsistencies. For example, create a column of cells where each equals double the cell to its left. Then change the formula for one cell so that it triples the cell to its left. Excel will put a little flag on that cell which displays the following clicked:
"The formula in this cell differs from the formulas in this area of the spreadsheet".
Jerry Seinfeld summed this up years ago in one of his standup routines.