You are confusing the network with the machines on the network. A unsecured network simply means you are able to send and receive packets on the network that other devices (if any) on the network can (if they chose to) accept, and/or respond to.
If the WAP in unsecured by design, the network is unsecured (assuming normal things like the WAP actually routes packets to and from the wired network OR to and from other wireless devices OR both).
It isn't "my" semicolon notation, it's called lightstone's notation. That said, I probably bastardized it. I believe, but could be wrong, it's discussed here:
* Infinitesimals and Integration
* A. H. Lightstone
* Mathematics Magazine
Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), pp. 20-30
(article consists of 11 pages)
* Published by: Mathematical Association of America
* Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2688575
I'm not a super math guy, but looking at, I would say:.999... isn't an exact number to begin with. It's an infintily close approximation of 1.
Additionally,.999... multiplied by 10, isn't 9.999... it's 9.999...;...990 (9 followed by an infinite number of 9's and then one digit beyond infinite is 0), which then makes the statement that 9.999... -.999... = 9 as incorrect. It would be 9.999...;...990 -.999...;...999... = 8.999...;...991 or something like that (probably more like 8.999...;...999...;...1)
So the other day I was walking along and noticed a nice park. I looked around and I saw a few unsecured benches. I looked around for a sign telling me who the owner was so that I could contact them and ask if it was open to the public, or if it was a privately owned bench left unsecured by someone else, but I could not find one. Without any indication that it wasn't a privately owned, unsecured bench sitting in a public place, I decided to use it.
While sitting I decided to pull out my iDevice, and started to browse the web. When I opened my browser, I saw a few unsecured routers. I looked around for a sign telling me who the owner was so that I could contact them and ask if it was open to the public, or if it was a privately owned router left unsecured by someone else, but I could not find one. Without any indication that it wasn't a privately owned, unsecured router broadcasting in a public place, I decided to use it.
If you want to put an unsecured bench in public where other people can legally get it (not on your private property), then you need to secure it, put up a sign letting people know it's not for public use, or you are implicitly letting the public use it. If you want to put an unsecured router where other people can legally send/transmit to it (not on your private property), then you need to secure it, put up a sign (password protect it/encrypt it/or not broadcast the SSID), or you are implicitly letting the public use it.
You forgot: Corporate taxes. The salaries for the accountants, the sales/marketing guys, managers, and executives. Advertisements (email, radio, tv, magazines). Normal office equipment (Phones, Email, firewall, desks, chairs, pens, paper). Website for support/advertising/patches. IT support staff to keep the network, email, firewalls, anti-virus, and patches going. Network equipment (Switches, routers, firewall, internet connection). 401K matching, partial subsidized office perks (gym membership, etc). Interest paid on the money fronted by investors/loans. Most likely a conference room for company meetings, sales pitches, etc. Sales/Marketing expenses (trips, meetings, persuasion/entertainment monies). Legal Fees (Trademarks, Contracts, lawsuits). Possibly head hunter/placement fees associated with hiring your programmers, QA, HR, Financial staff.
I got an iPhone 4 last July too, and I love it. Androids UI is slow and clunky, unrefined. It's also missing the apps I use on a daily basis (Netflix, Comcast, a couple others). It doesn't auto hyperlink phone numbers in the browser either, how ancient.
Not everyone is willing to be tied to a particular carrier for 2 years. It's still a $500 phone, it's just under certain circumstances, you are allowing the carrier to pay $200 of that price for you, in exchange for you agreeing to use their service for a minimum of 2 years, otherwise you have to pay it back (prorated) when you cancel.
Not all NATs can do everything that every firewall ever invented can do. However, most NATs can do what most basic firewalls do with packet inspection/filtering and being a circuit-level gateway. Some firewalls go beyond that, but they aren't the "common" firewall that 99% of the users on slashdot think of when they talk about a firewall, like Windows built-in firewall, Zone Alarm, or older Cisco firewalls, and even some of the more basic business class firewall packages.
So yes, a NAT can act as a firewall (No, not the best firewall with every feature ever known), but a firewall can not act as a NAT (without becoming a NAT), if that helps.
You can be behind a firewall without NAT and achieve the same thing.
What same thing? If you are a using a "firewall" that maps internal addresses to external addresses then your firewall is a NAT. If it doesn't map internal address to external address, then no, it doesn't achieve the same thing.
NAT can be done without a firewall and a firewall can be done without NAT.
Perhaps, that depends on your NAT implementation. A good NAT implementation achieves the same effect as most entry level firewalls (No packet from "outside" and get "inside" unless an "inside" machine initiates the conversation. Some NATs can even restrict it further, disallowing internal machines to talk to some/any outside machines at all, making a NAT have all the features of a bi-directional firewall AND do network address translation.
Being behind a firewall provides much more protection then just being behind NAT.
Again, depends on your NAT. A good NAT can do everything a firewall can, but the reverse isn't true, because as soon as a firewall does network translation, it's no longer just a firewall, it's a NAT.
However, if ECC is a requirement, you can check out this part: 270-WS-W555-A1 also known as the Classified SR-2. 7 x16/x8 slots Dual Cpu (Xeon 5500/5600) Supports up to 48GB of DDR3
I was referring to part number 170-BL-E762-A1, however, it does not have ECC. It claims 4x SLI, however, that is because most video cards that are SLI require 2 slots eating up the slot between them, this board actually has 7 x16/x8 slots.
Slashdot Mirror
Yay for slashdot eating < .333...;...333... > .333
1/3 >
.333... .333...;...333... 1/3
Yes, there is.
You are confusing the network with the machines on the network. A unsecured network simply means you are able to send and receive packets on the network that other devices (if any) on the network can (if they chose to) accept, and/or respond to.
If the WAP in unsecured by design, the network is unsecured (assuming normal things like the WAP actually routes packets to and from the wired network OR to and from other wireless devices OR both).
It isn't "my" semicolon notation, it's called lightstone's notation. That said, I probably bastardized it. I believe, but could be wrong, it's discussed here:
* Infinitesimals and Integration
* A. H. Lightstone
* Mathematics Magazine
Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), pp. 20-30
(article consists of 11 pages)
* Published by: Mathematical Association of America
* Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2688575
There is no such thing as beyond infinite
Says whom?
I'm not a super math guy, but looking at, I would say: .999... isn't an exact number to begin with. It's an infintily close approximation of 1.
Additionally, .999... multiplied by 10, isn't 9.999... it's 9.999...;...990 (9 followed by an infinite number of 9's and then one digit beyond infinite is 0), which then makes the statement that 9.999... - .999... = 9 as incorrect. It would be 9.999...;...990 - .999...;...999... = 8.999...;...991 or something like that (probably more like 8.999...;...999...;...1)
Read the article, it's the 4th sentence.
No, .999... is infinitely approximate to 1. Or more accurately, it's 1- 0.000...;...001...
Just as .111... is infinitely approximate to 1/9.
.999... isn't exactly 1, and when floored, it becomes 0.
So the other day I was walking along and noticed a nice park. I looked around and I saw a few unsecured benches. I looked around for a sign telling me who the owner was so that I could contact them and ask if it was open to the public, or if it was a privately owned bench left unsecured by someone else, but I could not find one. Without any indication that it wasn't a privately owned, unsecured bench sitting in a public place, I decided to use it.
While sitting I decided to pull out my iDevice, and started to browse the web. When I opened my browser, I saw a few unsecured routers. I looked around for a sign telling me who the owner was so that I could contact them and ask if it was open to the public, or if it was a privately owned router left unsecured by someone else, but I could not find one. Without any indication that it wasn't a privately owned, unsecured router broadcasting in a public place, I decided to use it.
If you want to put an unsecured bench in public where other people can legally get it (not on your private property), then you need to secure it, put up a sign letting people know it's not for public use, or you are implicitly letting the public use it. If you want to put an unsecured router where other people can legally send/transmit to it (not on your private property), then you need to secure it, put up a sign (password protect it/encrypt it/or not broadcast the SSID), or you are implicitly letting the public use it.
I know people who log twice that every week, and amazingly enough, almost 3 times that on some weeks (release days).
You forgot:
Corporate taxes.
The salaries for the accountants, the sales/marketing guys, managers, and executives.
Advertisements (email, radio, tv, magazines).
Normal office equipment (Phones, Email, firewall, desks, chairs, pens, paper).
Website for support/advertising/patches.
IT support staff to keep the network, email, firewalls, anti-virus, and patches going.
Network equipment (Switches, routers, firewall, internet connection).
401K matching, partial subsidized office perks (gym membership, etc).
Interest paid on the money fronted by investors/loans.
Most likely a conference room for company meetings, sales pitches, etc.
Sales/Marketing expenses (trips, meetings, persuasion/entertainment monies).
Legal Fees (Trademarks, Contracts, lawsuits).
Possibly head hunter/placement fees associated with hiring your programmers, QA, HR, Financial staff.
Probably a ton more as well.
Yes
I got an iPhone 4 last July too, and I love it. Androids UI is slow and clunky, unrefined. It's also missing the apps I use on a daily basis (Netflix, Comcast, a couple others). It doesn't auto hyperlink phone numbers in the browser either, how ancient.
Not everyone is willing to be tied to a particular carrier for 2 years. It's still a $500 phone, it's just under certain circumstances, you are allowing the carrier to pay $200 of that price for you, in exchange for you agreeing to use their service for a minimum of 2 years, otherwise you have to pay it back (prorated) when you cancel.
Please read the patch notes, directly from blizzard:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/patch-4-13-04.shtml
World of Warcraft was like that.. in Beta.
Not all NATs can do everything that every firewall ever invented can do. However, most NATs can do what most basic firewalls do with packet inspection/filtering and being a circuit-level gateway. Some firewalls go beyond that, but they aren't the "common" firewall that 99% of the users on slashdot think of when they talk about a firewall, like Windows built-in firewall, Zone Alarm, or older Cisco firewalls, and even some of the more basic business class firewall packages.
So yes, a NAT can act as a firewall (No, not the best firewall with every feature ever known), but a firewall can not act as a NAT (without becoming a NAT), if that helps.
You do realize that you just described NAT in a round about way?
Limiting physical proximity IS a basic security mechanism.
You can be behind a firewall without NAT and achieve the same thing.
What same thing? If you are a using a "firewall" that maps internal addresses to external addresses then your firewall is a NAT. If it doesn't map internal address to external address, then no, it doesn't achieve the same thing.
NAT can be done without a firewall and a firewall can be done without NAT.
Perhaps, that depends on your NAT implementation. A good NAT implementation achieves the same effect as most entry level firewalls (No packet from "outside" and get "inside" unless an "inside" machine initiates the conversation. Some NATs can even restrict it further, disallowing internal machines to talk to some/any outside machines at all, making a NAT have all the features of a bi-directional firewall AND do network address translation.
Being behind a firewall provides much more protection then just being behind NAT.
Again, depends on your NAT. A good NAT can do everything a firewall can, but the reverse isn't true, because as soon as a firewall does network translation, it's no longer just a firewall, it's a NAT.
However, if ECC is a requirement, you can check out this part: 270-WS-W555-A1 also known as the Classified SR-2.
7 x16/x8 slots
Dual Cpu (Xeon 5500/5600)
Supports up to 48GB of DDR3
I was referring to part number 170-BL-E762-A1, however, it does not have ECC. It claims 4x SLI, however, that is because most video cards that are SLI require 2 slots eating up the slot between them, this board actually has 7 x16/x8 slots.
Isn't Evga's X58 Classified boards better with 7 16x/8x slots?