Actually NAT DOES provide some sort of security. That is because by default nobody can see which devices sit behind the NAT. They also can't directly address them. So you want to see if your milk expired at home while you are at work so you can buy more if you need to? That problem has been solved. Your fridge had NO problem making outbound connections. It CAN upload the latest stats to a website that either you host yourself or a service from your fridge manufacturer. Need a better solution? Map the Public IP of the NAT but with a high unused port number to your fridge. Then whenever you connect to your SINGLE IP address but on that specific port it will serve up the stats on the fridge.
See there are two solutions already to your perceived problem.
Does your small business with 60 employees want to use IP telephony? In this case, each PC (or each telephone) needs a public IP. You can get away with routing this at the application layer, but why bother when it doesn't actually gain you anything?
Wrong! I deployed 100 Hosted VOIP phones in a NAT environment. My Router has 11 public IP addresses but the phones all use the same one. If I used SIP trunks instead it would be the same deal. Only the phone server would need a public IP for the SIP trunks; not each phone.
Do you know what reseller means? They don't resell anything. They make it! They make their hardware and they design and sell their own software. They also spend millions a year on research and development in many scientific fields.
I know this is a really new and novel idea for tech companies but there used to be this method that stocks had to put money directly into the hands of the shareholders. I think they called it a dividend or something. Now I know that no tech company has ever issued a dividend but maybe they can think of starting such a practice? Make it small like 2-3 cents per share and see how it goes. It's likely to be way more profitable for the shareholders then a stock repurchasing plan.
You imagine incorrectly. No such idea even faintly presented itself in my head. I don't see anything wrong with Animal breeding programs with a specific outcome and I am very religious. I think you just took an article about tortoises and turned it into a sacrilegious rant in which you pinned up your strawman you created yourself.
I think you missed something here. This has been though out already. Like a few decades ago. Open Source companies have business models to MAKE MONEY. They sell support for their products. They even sometime sell the product itself. Open Source means the code is open but sometimes the product itself can still be sold. Open Source lowers the barriers of entry into business and opens doors for programmers to customize solutions for specific companies which need that kind of work done. The OSS endgame is that the world is a much better place where solutions thrive based on merit and not based on the corrupt business practices of a few greedy companies. In addition more; not less programmers will be needed. They will still make a lot of money.
Companies will always need custom software or at least customization of open-source software. These programmers make the same rates as all other programmers. In addition the improvements can then be released into the main line of the open source software and add to the value that already exists. Everybody wins and the programmers have the same amount of work to do but companies save thousands up front and get to plow that back into the business or use it to hire more programmers.
I'm willing to bet that even with the increased cost they would still have a healthy profit margin. This is all about padding the profit margin and saving cost by not actually upgrading the network continuously like they should be. Remember, people are actually PAYING for these connections.
It would be nice if it didn't matter but in fact people are voting FOR Barack Obama simply because he identifies himself as black. They think they will create some GREAT SOCIAL JUSTICE by voting in the first "Black" president.
Actually anyone who lives in chi-town is suspicious to me. Did you know it was voted the most stressful place to live in the Unites States? Nobody in their right mind would WANT to live there. Only the corruption and crime (and the industry that creates for politicians) makes people attracted to that place.
I do carpool with my wife. The cost difference in housing between the two counties is about $500 a month. It costs less to carpool with my wife and take a toll road to get to work then to move closer.
I agree with that. I never disputed it. I just know that alternatives cost more on the whole right now. In fact you said that oil going up in price was what we wanted to force alternatives to be viable. But I think in reverse that we should use the lowest cost solution available to us while also planning for the future and alternatives. That's why we need to drill now.
Huh? But the economy as a whole suffers when energy costs more. I get your point but I think it is severely flawed. What would be optimal is for the cost of alternatives to come DOWN to meet Oil instead of the cost of Oil coming UP to meet alternatives.
Yes and it is a trade-off between reducing pollution but causing strife and poverty and keeping oil flowing for now but keeping the economy viable. Both options have downsides.
You are getting really angry. This is good. Look there is no difference between an oil spill here or half a world away. It is the same environment. Also the biggest spill in history was from a SHIP carrying oil. Where do you think we get our oil from now? Ships! Drilling more does not equal more local spills. Also oil takes a long time to get out of the ground once you start so if we start now then in five years maybe we'll be oil free but we can sell the oil to China? Sound like a plan?
Lastly, of course scarcity equals high prices which is why we want to drill now. Your arguing against drilling is arguing against your own self. You just said scarcity is important in driving prices up. You just argued to drill now.
Lastly, any energy bill should have incentives for alternative energy. Of course we need to move away from oil. But we also have to survive until those alternatives become economically viable.
I agree with you on your assessment of the predatory lending and credit crisis. I worked for companies that let their sales departments run them into the ground by selling only sub-prime loans in which the borrowers or the Loan Officer or both lied on the loan.
I think the solution to your refining problem is that we need more refining capacity not more efficiency. Like I said you always need extra capacity. This means people will have to stop whining about building a refinery in their backyard and deal with it.
Nobody is price fixing. However the Democrats seem to think speculation is Lucifer and want to squash it. I'm fine with some speculation but I do not agree that we should just stop drilling for oil so that we can be forced to find alternatives. I think we should do the responsible thing and fund alternatives while keeping the oil supply healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're really of your rocker if you think a lame duck president is going to end the world with only a few months left in his term.
Why do I have a feeling that you are a democrat and you are actually talking about oil?
See there are two solutions already to your perceived problem.
Wrong! I deployed 100 Hosted VOIP phones in a NAT environment. My Router has 11 public IP addresses but the phones all use the same one. If I used SIP trunks instead it would be the same deal. Only the phone server would need a public IP for the SIP trunks; not each phone.
Do you know what reseller means? They don't resell anything. They make it! They make their hardware and they design and sell their own software. They also spend millions a year on research and development in many scientific fields.
I know this is a really new and novel idea for tech companies but there used to be this method that stocks had to put money directly into the hands of the shareholders. I think they called it a dividend or something. Now I know that no tech company has ever issued a dividend but maybe they can think of starting such a practice? Make it small like 2-3 cents per share and see how it goes. It's likely to be way more profitable for the shareholders then a stock repurchasing plan.
You imagine incorrectly. No such idea even faintly presented itself in my head. I don't see anything wrong with Animal breeding programs with a specific outcome and I am very religious. I think you just took an article about tortoises and turned it into a sacrilegious rant in which you pinned up your strawman you created yourself.
I think you missed something here. This has been though out already. Like a few decades ago. Open Source companies have business models to MAKE MONEY. They sell support for their products. They even sometime sell the product itself. Open Source means the code is open but sometimes the product itself can still be sold. Open Source lowers the barriers of entry into business and opens doors for programmers to customize solutions for specific companies which need that kind of work done. The OSS endgame is that the world is a much better place where solutions thrive based on merit and not based on the corrupt business practices of a few greedy companies. In addition more; not less programmers will be needed. They will still make a lot of money.
Companies will always need custom software or at least customization of open-source software. These programmers make the same rates as all other programmers. In addition the improvements can then be released into the main line of the open source software and add to the value that already exists. Everybody wins and the programmers have the same amount of work to do but companies save thousands up front and get to plow that back into the business or use it to hire more programmers.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/poll.2008/index.html Black voters vote black.
I'm willing to bet that even with the increased cost they would still have a healthy profit margin. This is all about padding the profit margin and saving cost by not actually upgrading the network continuously like they should be. Remember, people are actually PAYING for these connections.
It would be nice if it didn't matter but in fact people are voting FOR Barack Obama simply because he identifies himself as black. They think they will create some GREAT SOCIAL JUSTICE by voting in the first "Black" president.
Actually anyone who lives in chi-town is suspicious to me. Did you know it was voted the most stressful place to live in the Unites States? Nobody in their right mind would WANT to live there. Only the corruption and crime (and the industry that creates for politicians) makes people attracted to that place.
It only takes me 30 minutes to get to work. Longer to get home on days when the traffic is bad.
I do carpool with my wife. The cost difference in housing between the two counties is about $500 a month. It costs less to carpool with my wife and take a toll road to get to work then to move closer.
Busses don't run between Riverside and Orange County but nice try. I'd take public transportation IF it existed.
I agree with that. I never disputed it. I just know that alternatives cost more on the whole right now. In fact you said that oil going up in price was what we wanted to force alternatives to be viable. But I think in reverse that we should use the lowest cost solution available to us while also planning for the future and alternatives. That's why we need to drill now.
Huh? But the economy as a whole suffers when energy costs more. I get your point but I think it is severely flawed. What would be optimal is for the cost of alternatives to come DOWN to meet Oil instead of the cost of Oil coming UP to meet alternatives.
Yes and it is a trade-off between reducing pollution but causing strife and poverty and keeping oil flowing for now but keeping the economy viable. Both options have downsides.
Since when were consumers and taxpayers different entities?
You are getting really angry. This is good. Look there is no difference between an oil spill here or half a world away. It is the same environment. Also the biggest spill in history was from a SHIP carrying oil. Where do you think we get our oil from now? Ships! Drilling more does not equal more local spills. Also oil takes a long time to get out of the ground once you start so if we start now then in five years maybe we'll be oil free but we can sell the oil to China? Sound like a plan?
Lastly, of course scarcity equals high prices which is why we want to drill now. Your arguing against drilling is arguing against your own self. You just said scarcity is important in driving prices up. You just argued to drill now.
Lastly, any energy bill should have incentives for alternative energy. Of course we need to move away from oil. But we also have to survive until those alternatives become economically viable.
I agree with you on your assessment of the predatory lending and credit crisis. I worked for companies that let their sales departments run them into the ground by selling only sub-prime loans in which the borrowers or the Loan Officer or both lied on the loan.
I think the solution to your refining problem is that we need more refining capacity not more efficiency. Like I said you always need extra capacity. This means people will have to stop whining about building a refinery in their backyard and deal with it.
Nobody is price fixing. However the Democrats seem to think speculation is Lucifer and want to squash it. I'm fine with some speculation but I do not agree that we should just stop drilling for oil so that we can be forced to find alternatives. I think we should do the responsible thing and fund alternatives while keeping the oil supply healthy.
When you can't imagine something you set your world up to come crashing down around you.
There is a comprehensive book on the subject. It is called Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics Buy it.
Sorry but which part of my post was NOT factual. Every sentence contained facts.