Perhaps wrenches won't, but the 6-point sockets that I use work just fine on them, as opposed to the "normal" 12-pointers. open ends of wrenches should work just fine as well.

except for the holiday time bill, we bottom out at 1400 in the winter months. goes up to about 2500 in the summer when the a/c runs. having kids who don't know how to turn off the lights doesn't help that any.

then again neither does the server farm. but i can live with it.

but I could probably handle a Singapore Airlines stewardess searching my handle...

ftfy

We tried that here in Minnesota for a while. We had this guy who truly didn't like the way the city council was going. So he ran for mayor and won. Later on he ran as an independent for Governor and also won. The Jesse Ventura experiment failed miserably, because as we all know, power corrupts.

I attended a lecture the attorney against Cali gave a few weeks back where he was discussing this case. I found it very interesting that he was relying exclusively on the fact that the court, conservative though they may be, has been as of late giving the first amendment strong leeway in what it encompasses. He's relying solely on the first amendment in his case. Were it my case, I'd invoke the commerce clause, as such regulations are clearly the realm of Congress, as they can have a major effect on interstate commerce, and we all know how broadly SCOTUS has interpreted that particular clause.

ever try running multiple https virtual hosts on the same ip address/port 443 combination like that? becuase of the nature of ssl, it doesn't work.

the problem with that line of thought is that if you change one protocol that the internet relies on so heavily to function (DNS) instead of another (IP), nothing has been accomplished. yes this is an oversimplification of the problem at hand, but standard port numbers are standard port numbers for a reason. what's worse, if you allow the two to coexist, if a couple of https web sites mapped to the same ip address but with different ports, older clients that didn't have the support for the new DNS extension would still have the problem of not being able to get to one of them.

i won't get into the matter of alternate name resolution systems (NIS, /etc/hosts, etc.), because i home they're not sufficiently common for internet purposes to be an issue.

Sure there's no reason you can't run 50 web servers on different ports on the same IP. except for customers who will never learn that you have to type in http://www.google.com:8080/ instead of google.com. browsers have been designed to assume that any url without a protocol type is for http port 80. why? because port 80 is the standard designated protocol for http.

the inability for customers or potential customers to access your business's web site is a sufficient motivator to not stray from the standard.

i'll bite.

have a look into the linux kernel that is used to provide nat on the vast majority of home routers. while it has certainly been a while since i had to build a kernel from scratch, the functionality you are referring to, dropping all incoming connections et seq., is provided by a completely different section of the codebase than the packet rewriting code. while creating nat rules without the use of the connection tracking (nf_conntrack, etc.) is difficult if not impossible, creating firewall rules without the use of the nat code (nf_nat, iptable_nat, etc.) is certainly possible. so while nat'ed systems inherently provide security in the form of a prerequisite stateful firewall, please don't make the incorrect assumption that the security exists because of the nat. it doesn't.

it might be old but its true. like the current sitting potus said, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

while nat tends to => firewalling capacities, firewall !=> nat therefore nat != firewall

i don't know about this guy, but my own auto policies have a $250 deductible, and full glass coverage, which they've had since i was in college. so, since tfa mentions other things besides the laptop, there may be a significantly larger expenditure on the part of the insurance company (and would be if it had been my car, not that my car would have had a laptop or other valuable electronic equipment in it ripe for stealing). in addition, every time i've had a claim that wasn't my fault, and the insurance company recovered, i've received a check for the amount of my deductible.

so, assuming the insurance company pays out anything, they will make every effort to recover their expenditures. knowing where the guy is will only serve to lessen their expenditures because they don't have to spend as much time tracking the thief down.

exactly! presumably there's some loss the insurance company incurs (whether its replacing the glass in the window under glass coverage) or the laptop, or something. at that point, the insurance company is going to want to know where they can send a bill (no-fault or not). they have minions, i mean attorneys, who are very good at recovering money. your insurance agent (or claims adjuster) would definitely like to know this information.