You need to address it to a routable IP that the NAT gateway owns, and you need to teach the NAT gateway how to translate that routable IP to your internal IP (and possibly ports too). (Whether that "teach" part is something statically configured by the admin, or negotiated with the internal devices using some protocol or the other (uPnP?)). Plus your internal device may need to learn what the routable IP is in some manner in order to potentially send it to other devices to tell them how to get back to the internal device (the internal device may want to publish a DDNS record for itself, but since it may not be aware of what the routable IP is....), or other protocols which try to pass addresses around. In the IPv6 world, the device knows what it's globally routable IP is, and the "NAT gateway" becomes simpler and is only a firewall.
Actually, you can. You write your representatives in Parliament to pressure the US to drop these insane ideas. Hey, if the US is going to pressure other countries to modify their laws to suit the US.. time for the reverse.
where the company that doesn't pay it's employees a living wage can generate more profit than the ones that do, yet no one has yet stepped in to protect factory workers and their "rights to the fruits of their own labour".
So you buy a static prefix assignment from your ISP. No renumbering as your prefix is in your contract. Even better would be to have a provider independent prefix and have them announce that instead. No renumbering even if you change ISPs.
The danger in your method is when (code below) gets changed, but the comment does not. As a result, the comment says something different than the code. That's where the advantage of "self-documenting" code comes in. When you change the code (to also self-documenting code), you don't run the risk of saying two different things.
you'll find that they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done" when they ask for it,
As opposed to your statement:
They don't know what "can be done"...
And there's a difference between "Customer wants a a full-featured Rich Text editing feature in our forum software by March 1." vs "We have to have a full-featured Rich Text editing feature in our forum software by March 1 or the company will collapse.". The techs get the second one far more often than the first. There's no point in negotiating about the second one because it has been clearly stated that if it cannot be done by March 1, then that's it. Now if they come with "The customer wants X and would like it by Y.", or "The customer wants X by Y, can it be done by then?". If there isn't that hard deadline, then don't phrase it like there is one (ie: stop lying to the techs).
Again, the marketing and sales guys are supposed to be on the same team as the techs. If the question gets phrased in such a way to invite discussion, they'll find that they'll get a better answer. Instead of demanding everything, and expecting the techs to try to wheedle concessions out of sales (which is a waste of time by the tech). Why aren't they starting with the the smaller subset (recall, this started with sales asking for something they know isn't possible), or even simply acknowledging that the timeline is unreasonable with "The customer wants X by Y. How much of X can we do by then?".
If you're straight with most of your marketing & sales guys, you'll find that they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done" when they ask for it, and are perfectly happy to negotiate on a phased delivery, or a longer timetable, or a reduced feature set hit that scratches the right itch for the customer in question.
If they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done", then why are they asking for it? Why aren't they asking for what "can be done"? If they're not being straight with me, why should I have to go on a hunt for what they really need? Remember, we're supposed to be on the same team.
What's your point? I wouldn't have a problem installing on the SD card that came with the phone. Heck, it's never _left_ the phone, might as well be welded to the mainboard.
Actually, I misread D. I read "he'll wipe his PC" as opposed to what was actually written "they'll just wipe my PC". My apologies. (And is really the one I was primarily objecting to.)
Unlike the OP, you didn't specifically mention whether this was done on your time or the company's. All of items c, d, and e would make me question your ethics. C is a timebomb, and d is malicious sabotage. E is borderline extortion. (OK, the last one is somewhat over-exaggerated.)
I disagree. I think they got one of the right guys. (Note "one of", not "the" right guy). I don't think anybody could reasonably expect that the guy was dealing with an above-the-board transaction. This guy was willfully distributing stuff the he knew (or any reasonable person would have known) wasn't legit.
If you're coming up on a light that is already yellow, you should be stopping, not thinking "Hey, I can squeeze that yellow." You should also be thinking exactly where the (imaginary) line is that marks the point of no return where you cannot stop for the intersection. Before that line, you stop. After that line, you ignore the traffic light, you can't stop anyway. (And if you could, then you're misjudging where that line is to begin with.)
We have a law coving this directly: "Driving without due care and attention". The trouble is attempting to prove it in court so that it will stick. Banning things like handheld devices lowers the "proving it" requirement. Not that I think a new law is required. Part of the problem is the attitude of people who will challenge every driving ticket they get in the hopes of getting off (and resultantly overburdening the courts). I'm all for challenging tickets where you honestly figure there's been a problem with the ticket. But if you're doing 80 in a 50 zone, don't challenge that ticket. You know you were speeding, you just got caught. (Unless you have some other defence for speeding, extenuating circumstances and such.)
1. Irrelevant. You are in a position of trust. It's your responsibility to ignore the content.
2. Also your responsibility. You know you're going to talk to someone who has access to confidential information. Ask them if they have confidential data on the screen before you look at it.
I usually saw the 6 and 9 V transformers for devices which are normally battery powered. 2 x AA batteries would be 6 V, and the 9 V battery (of course).
That would appear to be a misinterpretation of what the scrum meetings are for. They're supposed to be for the team to communicate with each other. Plus ScrumMaster != Manager. The SM is supposed to be there to "defend" the team. That's why the SM should not be the Product Owner. It's in the PO's interest to extract as much work as possible from the team. The SM's interest is supposed to hold the PO at bay and allow the team to do their work with interruptions (which includes a PO breathing down their neck).
Then at the end of the sprint you look to see if the stories committed to at the beginning of the sprint were completed at the end of the sprint. Adjust velocity as appropriate and start next sprint....
Slashdot Mirror
You need to address it to a routable IP that the NAT gateway owns, and you need to teach the NAT gateway how to translate that routable IP to your internal IP (and possibly ports too). (Whether that "teach" part is something statically configured by the admin, or negotiated with the internal devices using some protocol or the other (uPnP?)). Plus your internal device may need to learn what the routable IP is in some manner in order to potentially send it to other devices to tell them how to get back to the internal device (the internal device may want to publish a DDNS record for itself, but since it may not be aware of what the routable IP is....), or other protocols which try to pass addresses around. In the IPv6 world, the device knows what it's globally routable IP is, and the "NAT gateway" becomes simpler and is only a firewall.
Or your ISP is doing DHCPv6 and is assigning generated addresses to CPE devices.
The "NAT" part of that post isn't what's providing your security, the "firewall" part is.
Correlation does not imply causality. They're looking for the cause why it appears that women are underrepresented.
Actually, you can. You write your representatives in Parliament to pressure the US to drop these insane ideas. Hey, if the US is going to pressure other countries to modify their laws to suit the US.. time for the reverse.
where the company that doesn't pay it's employees a living wage can generate more profit than the ones that do, yet no one has yet stepped in to protect factory workers and their "rights to the fruits of their own labour".
Isn't that what Unions were created for?
So you buy a static prefix assignment from your ISP. No renumbering as your prefix is in your contract. Even better would be to have a provider independent prefix and have them announce that instead. No renumbering even if you change ISPs.
The danger in your method is when (code below) gets changed, but the comment does not. As a result, the comment says something different than the code. That's where the advantage of "self-documenting" code comes in. When you change the code (to also self-documenting code), you don't run the risk of saying two different things.
Uh... read the specs again... that's 1 *TB*, not 1 *GB*.
you'll find that they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done" when they ask for it,
As opposed to your statement:
They don't know what "can be done"...
And there's a difference between "Customer wants a a full-featured Rich Text editing feature in our forum software by March 1." vs "We have to have a full-featured Rich Text editing feature in our forum software by March 1 or the company will collapse.". The techs get the second one far more often than the first. There's no point in negotiating about the second one because it has been clearly stated that if it cannot be done by March 1, then that's it. Now if they come with "The customer wants X and would like it by Y.", or "The customer wants X by Y, can it be done by then?". If there isn't that hard deadline, then don't phrase it like there is one (ie: stop lying to the techs). Again, the marketing and sales guys are supposed to be on the same team as the techs. If the question gets phrased in such a way to invite discussion, they'll find that they'll get a better answer. Instead of demanding everything, and expecting the techs to try to wheedle concessions out of sales (which is a waste of time by the tech). Why aren't they starting with the the smaller subset (recall, this started with sales asking for something they know isn't possible), or even simply acknowledging that the timeline is unreasonable with "The customer wants X by Y. How much of X can we do by then?".
Go nuts. That's what source control is for. You can revert any change made by them.
If you're straight with most of your marketing & sales guys, you'll find that they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done" when they ask for it, and are perfectly happy to negotiate on a phased delivery, or a longer timetable, or a reduced feature set hit that scratches the right itch for the customer in question.
If they're well aware that what they're asking for "can't be done", then why are they asking for it? Why aren't they asking for what "can be done"? If they're not being straight with me, why should I have to go on a hunt for what they really need? Remember, we're supposed to be on the same team.
Installing on SD card wouldn't be convenient.
What's your point? I wouldn't have a problem installing on the SD card that came with the phone. Heck, it's never _left_ the phone, might as well be welded to the mainboard.
And then when the IT department attempts to arrange a time, the other guys come back with "never".
Actually, I misread D. I read "he'll wipe his PC" as opposed to what was actually written "they'll just wipe my PC". My apologies. (And is really the one I was primarily objecting to.)
Unlike the OP, you didn't specifically mention whether this was done on your time or the company's. All of items c, d, and e would make me question your ethics. C is a timebomb, and d is malicious sabotage. E is borderline extortion. (OK, the last one is somewhat over-exaggerated.)
You do realize that your current car "plugs in" (at gas stations), and is limited in range (tank capacity)?
I disagree. I think they got one of the right guys. (Note "one of", not "the" right guy). I don't think anybody could reasonably expect that the guy was dealing with an above-the-board transaction. This guy was willfully distributing stuff the he knew (or any reasonable person would have known) wasn't legit.
If you're coming up on a light that is already yellow, you should be stopping, not thinking "Hey, I can squeeze that yellow." You should also be thinking exactly where the (imaginary) line is that marks the point of no return where you cannot stop for the intersection. Before that line, you stop. After that line, you ignore the traffic light, you can't stop anyway. (And if you could, then you're misjudging where that line is to begin with.)
We have a law coving this directly: "Driving without due care and attention". The trouble is attempting to prove it in court so that it will stick. Banning things like handheld devices lowers the "proving it" requirement. Not that I think a new law is required. Part of the problem is the attitude of people who will challenge every driving ticket they get in the hopes of getting off (and resultantly overburdening the courts). I'm all for challenging tickets where you honestly figure there's been a problem with the ticket. But if you're doing 80 in a 50 zone, don't challenge that ticket. You know you were speeding, you just got caught. (Unless you have some other defence for speeding, extenuating circumstances and such.)
Or polarized lenses tuned to the frequency. If you're handling even slightly higher powered lasers, they're a must-have.
More recent standards have been dictating a /56 to a subscriber home.
1. Irrelevant. You are in a position of trust. It's your responsibility to ignore the content. 2. Also your responsibility. You know you're going to talk to someone who has access to confidential information. Ask them if they have confidential data on the screen before you look at it.
I usually saw the 6 and 9 V transformers for devices which are normally battery powered. 2 x AA batteries would be 6 V, and the 9 V battery (of course).
That would appear to be a misinterpretation of what the scrum meetings are for. They're supposed to be for the team to communicate with each other. Plus ScrumMaster != Manager. The SM is supposed to be there to "defend" the team. That's why the SM should not be the Product Owner. It's in the PO's interest to extract as much work as possible from the team. The SM's interest is supposed to hold the PO at bay and allow the team to do their work with interruptions (which includes a PO breathing down their neck). Then at the end of the sprint you look to see if the stories committed to at the beginning of the sprint were completed at the end of the sprint. Adjust velocity as appropriate and start next sprint....