50 years old and happily routing/switching/firewalling my days away. As for management... I'd rather deal with recalcitrant machines than recalcitrant people. No contest.
Clearly, you didn't read the article. The document attachment won't trigger your scanner, because it exploits an unpublicized kernel vulnerability. Because it's a kernel vulnerability, it's quite unlikely privilege separation will help you. So unless you forbid people to get any and all.doc/.docx files from any source, you are vulnerable to something like this.
So... you do block all possible access to.docx files, right? Or maybe you need to realize that your 20 year old security rules that aren't 20 years old are also already out of date. The game has changed.
Instead of being handled by a government agency overseen by elected officials, you are beholden to a for-profit organization who wants everyone to pay in more than they draw out.
Your faith in the State's benevolence is duly noted, and downright cute.
A carbon tax doesn't destroy the economy per se, it changes the tilt on the game board creating new winners and losers. It only causes big problems if you insist that the old winners must continue to be winners, which isn't something that any government ought to promise.
Utterly and completely wrong. At the root of the Industrial Revolution is one simple thing: material abundance didn't happen until people found out how to replace muscle power with the stored energy in abundant fossil fuels (there isn't enough wood). A carbon tax makes that energy more expensive. When energy costs rise, everything gets more expensive -- especially food. Cheap food and cheap energy are the basis of modern civilization. Start bumping up the costs of those two things, and marginal countries won't be able to "catch up to the curve" and start improving the lot of the world's poor.
In short, don't kid yourself. Whether AGW is real or not (we don't know), whether it poses a threat or not (surely a big event like this would have SOME positive impacts as well as some negative ones), don't kid yourself. Cutting down carbon emissions will kill some people -- it just won't be people you know.
The people who built the irrigation systems back then understood how salinification worked. They knew that you have to slightly over-water the land to prevent salt buildups.
"The internet has reached a stage were it is just as important a service as power and water..."
No, it hasn't. It can't. If you need me to explain, you need to review 3rd grade biology. My daughter recently completed 3rd grade, but I'm pretty sure I don't trust any slashdotters around my daughter. So you'll need to find your own 3rd grader.
I can find no part of the MA Constitution which grants government power to pass a mandatory "buy insurance or be fined $1500" law.
Assuming you refer to car insurance, you have a third choice: Don't drive. You have no constitutional right to drive an automobile. If the state wants to require proof of financial responsibility before it licenses you to do so, it has violated your rights no more than if it makes you pay tolls to use the roads.
You do have a constitutional right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. That's the difference.
But the pronunciation of the Norfolk in Nebraska has a story behind it... The original settlers named it "North Fork," after the northern branch of the Platte River. But by the time the name of the town was being registered in Washington, DC, some Virginia-centric bureaucrat wrote the name as "Norfolk," obviously thinking it was named like Norfolk, VA.
However, the locals continued to pronounce the actual original name. And so, "Norfolk, Nebraska" is pronounced "Nor Fork" to this day. Just sometimes, a word can tell quite a tale.
Way too often, I know way too much utterly useless information.
Mod parent up. The death of SORBS would be a net gain in the fight against spam. Blacklisting entire ISP's who are "insufficiently responsive" only makes sense if you don't care whether email gets delivered or not.
Even in the 'land of opportunity', it takes a good hundred years of honest work with full legal protections to make something of yourself (or in this case, make something of your great grandchildren).
SSSShhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Don't tell the 2 immigrants (one just became a U.S. citizen last month) I work with who make >$100K/yr. They think they're doing just fine, and will be really pissed to learn their families' lives are going to suck for another century.
Did you bother to read the article the GP linked to at time.com?
Why have the stories of cannibalism remained under wraps? "Many of the people involved are still in power in Guangxi," Zheng suggests. "Some of those people told me to beware or I might get myself killed." Equally important, he feels, any revelation of the atrocities would be profoundly embarrassing to the Beijing government. "Top leadership has known about it all along," Zheng charges, "but it has not wanted anyone else to know."
It's not that simple, because your analysis ignores the public cost of people driving.
Already now, I-10 is apparently gridlocked much of the time. This is a high-growth area. Assume that the number of people wanting to make this trip doubles over the next 30 years.
Without rail or some kind of public transit, taxpayers will need to more than double the carrying capacity of I-10 (presumably the goal isn't to have twice as many people in the same gridlock as today.)
What's the PUBLIC cost of doubling the size of I-10, compared to the PUBLIC cost of the train?
The cost-benefit analysis is much different when you stop assuming that the I-10 you need in 30 years will be free, just because a smaller-than-needed version already exists.
He used the Cisco IOS command "no service password-recovery." Normally, with physical access to the router and a reboot, you can gain access to the router configuration file. "no service password-recovery" turns that function off.
HOWEVER, it DOES NOT WIPE THE CONFIGURATION FILE. It simply makes it impossible to gain console access to the router unless you swap out the flash memory. When you reboot the router, the magic key combination doesn't work, the router boots up, and all is as it was before.
Let's say "most of" the money is $450 million of the $712 million.
Let's say the average small gift was $50.
Do you realize it would take 90 million small donors to give that $450 millions? That's 20 million more people than VOTED for him!
Take off your rose-colored glasses. You voted for the candidate that took lots of donations from the wealthy and powerful, and used it to bury his opponent in ads. The guy who lost went the public funding route.
If you think the right guy won, cool for you. But you may wish to give up mathematically impossible naivete (sp?) about where all that cash came from.
Why not use multicast? Because the actual traffic from the hub site is IPSec packets sent individually to each remote site. Putting multicast packets inside each of those IPSec packets doesn't change the fact that a copy needs to cross that wire for each remote site. It won't help his bandwidth issue unless the spoke routers are meshed and doing multicast routing, neither of which is terribly likely.
"The costs usually are neglectable. A port at an exchange point only costs a few hundred to thousands dollars a month." The point isn't the cost of a few pieces of fiber between two cages at a POP. The point is that if the traffic is unbalanced, one company has to buy additional long-haul infrastructure to carry the other guy's traffic, the other does NOT have to buy additional infrastructure. If the relationship isn't a win/win with a cost of 0 to both, one needs to pay the other. It's a *business.* That's where the money comes from to pay for all that infrastructure that carries your bits around the globe.
Asking "companies to stop caring about all that business stuff" is like asking a lion to stop eating meat -- it's contrary to nature, and as a result the lion will die if you get your way.
Whether or not either party in this case made a *good* business decision is a different conversation.
Yeah, but that's how things ought to be, not how they are. As things are, those of us who pay what it takes to raise children are subsidizing the SS benefits of those who do not. So even from a purely fiscal perspective, tax breaks for having kids is about the only way we're actually doing anything to pre-fund Social Security.
Your faith in your viewpoint is charming. Can you cite a reputable source in the banking/mortgage industry who does *NOT* believe that the CRA led to lower credit standards?
Sure, the CRA says, "You are required to lend to these marginal neighborhoods, but you also must not lower your underwriting standards." The problem is that this was and is not possible on the scale the regulation enforcers would consider adequate.
You also don't consider the fact that if you can resell the loan to Fannie/Freddie, you don't really care what sound underwriting is; you care what Fannie/Freddie are willing to buy. Alan Greenspan specifically testified to the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, that they needed much closer regulation, because they were putting "the financial system of the future at substantial risk."
But it's clear you won't be convinced. I just wanted to say that your opinion is not shared by ignoramuses like Alan Greenspan.
P.S. The Community Reinvestment Act WAS AND IS a law. And the only way to lend in marginal neighborhoods is... to make marginal loans. It's interesting how your point of view prevents you from grasping something so very simple.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when both sides have stealth, and no one can get missile lock?
But, dogfighting is dead anyway. Now it's just about how many miles out can you "see" the target and fire your BVR missile before he sees you.
What happens when both sides have stealth?
doc
> We are numb, beaten into submission.
+1
doc
50 years old and happily routing/switching/firewalling my days away. As for management ... I'd rather deal with recalcitrant machines than recalcitrant people. No contest.
doc
SS was started because folks too old to work any more simply starved.
Citation needed.
Clearly, you didn't read the article. The document attachment won't trigger your scanner, because it exploits an unpublicized kernel vulnerability. Because it's a kernel vulnerability, it's quite unlikely privilege separation will help you. So unless you forbid people to get any and all .doc/.docx files from any source, you are vulnerable to something like this.
So ... you do block all possible access to .docx files, right? Or maybe you need to realize that your 20 year old security rules that aren't 20 years old are also already out of date. The game has changed.
doc
Instead of being handled by a government agency overseen by elected officials, you are beholden to a for-profit organization who wants everyone to pay in more than they draw out.
Your faith in the State's benevolence is duly noted, and downright cute.
doc
A carbon tax doesn't destroy the economy per se, it changes the tilt on the game board creating new winners and losers. It only causes big problems if you insist that the old winners must continue to be winners, which isn't something that any government ought to promise.
Utterly and completely wrong. At the root of the Industrial Revolution is one simple thing: material abundance didn't happen until people found out how to replace muscle power with the stored energy in abundant fossil fuels (there isn't enough wood). A carbon tax makes that energy more expensive. When energy costs rise, everything gets more expensive -- especially food. Cheap food and cheap energy are the basis of modern civilization. Start bumping up the costs of those two things, and marginal countries won't be able to "catch up to the curve" and start improving the lot of the world's poor.
In short, don't kid yourself. Whether AGW is real or not (we don't know), whether it poses a threat or not (surely a big event like this would have SOME positive impacts as well as some negative ones), don't kid yourself. Cutting down carbon emissions will kill some people -- it just won't be people you know.
The people who built the irrigation systems back then understood how salinification worked. They knew that you have to slightly over-water the land to prevent salt buildups.
As your sig says, citation needed.
"The internet has reached a stage were it is just as important a service as power and water ..."
No, it hasn't. It can't. If you need me to explain, you need to review 3rd grade biology. My daughter recently completed 3rd grade, but I'm pretty sure I don't trust any slashdotters around my daughter. So you'll need to find your own 3rd grader.
doc
I can find no part of the MA Constitution which grants government power to pass a mandatory "buy insurance or be fined $1500" law.
Assuming you refer to car insurance, you have a third choice: Don't drive. You have no constitutional right to drive an automobile. If the state wants to require proof of financial responsibility before it licenses you to do so, it has violated your rights no more than if it makes you pay tolls to use the roads.
You do have a constitutional right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. That's the difference.
doc
But the pronunciation of the Norfolk in Nebraska has a story behind it ... The original settlers named it "North Fork," after the northern branch of the Platte River. But by the time the name of the town was being registered in Washington, DC, some Virginia-centric bureaucrat wrote the name as "Norfolk," obviously thinking it was named like Norfolk, VA.
However, the locals continued to pronounce the actual original name. And so, "Norfolk, Nebraska" is pronounced "Nor Fork" to this day. Just sometimes, a word can tell quite a tale.
Way too often, I know way too much utterly useless information.
doctorcisco
Mod parent up. The death of SORBS would be a net gain in the fight against spam. Blacklisting entire ISP's who are "insufficiently responsive" only makes sense if you don't care whether email gets delivered or not.
doc
Even in the 'land of opportunity', it takes a good hundred years of honest work with full legal protections to make something of yourself (or in this case, make something of your great grandchildren).
SSSShhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Don't tell the 2 immigrants (one just became a U.S. citizen last month) I work with who make >$100K/yr. They think they're doing just fine, and will be really pissed to learn their families' lives are going to suck for another century.
doc
Did you bother to read the article the GP linked to at time.com?
Why have the stories of cannibalism remained under wraps? "Many of the people involved are still in power in Guangxi," Zheng suggests. "Some of those people told me to beware or I might get myself killed." Equally important, he feels, any revelation of the atrocities would be profoundly embarrassing to the Beijing government. "Top leadership has known about it all along," Zheng charges, "but it has not wanted anyone else to know."
doc
It's not that simple, because your analysis ignores the public cost of people driving.
Already now, I-10 is apparently gridlocked much of the time. This is a high-growth area. Assume that the number of people wanting to make this trip doubles over the next 30 years.
Without rail or some kind of public transit, taxpayers will need to more than double the carrying capacity of I-10 (presumably the goal isn't to have twice as many people in the same gridlock as today.)
What's the PUBLIC cost of doubling the size of I-10, compared to the PUBLIC cost of the train?
The cost-benefit analysis is much different when you stop assuming that the I-10 you need in 30 years will be free, just because a smaller-than-needed version already exists.
doctorcisco
No. Wrong. Incorrect.
He used the Cisco IOS command "no service password-recovery." Normally, with physical access to the router and a reboot, you can gain access to the router configuration file. "no service password-recovery" turns that function off.
HOWEVER, it DOES NOT WIPE THE CONFIGURATION FILE. It simply makes it impossible to gain console access to the router unless you swap out the flash memory. When you reboot the router, the magic key combination doesn't work, the router boots up, and all is as it was before.
Sigh.
doctorcisco
Let's say "most of" the money is $450 million of the $712 million.
Let's say the average small gift was $50.
Do you realize it would take 90 million small donors to give that $450 millions? That's 20 million more people than VOTED for him!
Take off your rose-colored glasses. You voted for the candidate that took lots of donations from the wealthy and powerful, and used it to bury his opponent in ads. The guy who lost went the public funding route.
If you think the right guy won, cool for you. But you may wish to give up mathematically impossible naivete (sp?) about where all that cash came from.
Why not use multicast? Because the actual traffic from the hub site is IPSec packets sent individually to each remote site. Putting multicast packets inside each of those IPSec packets doesn't change the fact that a copy needs to cross that wire for each remote site. It won't help his bandwidth issue unless the spoke routers are meshed and doing multicast routing, neither of which is terribly likely.
doc
What planet are you living on?
"The costs usually are neglectable. A port at an exchange point only costs a few hundred to thousands dollars a month." The point isn't the cost of a few pieces of fiber between two cages at a POP. The point is that if the traffic is unbalanced, one company has to buy additional long-haul infrastructure to carry the other guy's traffic, the other does NOT have to buy additional infrastructure. If the relationship isn't a win/win with a cost of 0 to both, one needs to pay the other. It's a *business.* That's where the money comes from to pay for all that infrastructure that carries your bits around the globe.
Asking "companies to stop caring about all that business stuff" is like asking a lion to stop eating meat -- it's contrary to nature, and as a result the lion will die if you get your way.
Whether or not either party in this case made a *good* business decision is a different conversation.
doc
Yeah, but that's how things ought to be, not how they are. As things are, those of us who pay what it takes to raise children are subsidizing the SS benefits of those who do not. So even from a purely fiscal perspective, tax breaks for having kids is about the only way we're actually doing anything to pre-fund Social Security.
doc
Tell me that when you're drawing social security from my kids' wages.
P.S. I *LIVE* in a "marginal neighborhood" in Aurora, IL.
Your faith in your viewpoint is charming. Can you cite a reputable source in the banking/mortgage industry who does *NOT* believe that the CRA led to lower credit standards?
Sure, the CRA says, "You are required to lend to these marginal neighborhoods, but you also must not lower your underwriting standards." The problem is that this was and is not possible on the scale the regulation enforcers would consider adequate.
You also don't consider the fact that if you can resell the loan to Fannie/Freddie, you don't really care what sound underwriting is; you care what Fannie/Freddie are willing to buy. Alan Greenspan specifically testified to the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, that they needed much closer regulation, because they were putting "the financial system of the future at substantial risk."
But it's clear you won't be convinced. I just wanted to say that your opinion is not shared by ignoramuses like Alan Greenspan.
doc
P.S. The Community Reinvestment Act WAS AND IS a law. And the only way to lend in marginal neighborhoods is ... to make marginal loans. It's interesting how your point of view prevents you from grasping something so very simple.