Comment Re:To all the right wing drivelists (Score 1) 262
I authored the previous comment; I didn't realize that I was logged out when I did, so it showed up as AC. But it's me.
You know that you don't have to just add useless and uninteresting words to something that already had substance, right? At least borrow some quotes from Socrates' Dialogues to spice things up: There is admirable truth in that. That is not to be denied. That appears to be true. All this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. I think that what you say is entirely true. That, replied Cebes, is quite my notion. To that we are quite agreed. By all means. I entirely agree and go along with you in that. I quite understand you. I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned. If you're going to say _nothing_, at least be interesting about it, post anonymously, or risk looking more clueless / foolish. This is why the moderation system is in place, and mods typically don't listen to inanities like "Well said" when deciding on what to spend their points.
1. I'm too busy to sit around thinking up additional words to throw in so I can score "mod" points
2. The people I like on Slashdot are too busy to read a bunch of additional words I only threw in so I can score "mod" points
3. It's not in my nature to waste words, or to waste time
If other posts here on Slashdot are any indication, "Mr. Councilman" is just as likely to lose political points by supporting the poor.
Actually this particular councilman represents an extremely high-rent district--Manhattan's upper east side. I doubt there are many wealthier neighborhoods in the world. He's not doing this to 'score points', he's doing it to do the right thing.
It is my opinion that poverty is partially systemic. Our economic system depends on there being a pool of available workers (unemployed and underemployed). So as long as there is capitalism and a functioning free market, there will always be poor people. That being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met. Increasingly in order to succeed in school and in life, Internet access isn't really a luxury.
Well said
Time and again, history has shown a healthy middle class is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
Let me fix that for you:
Time and again history has shown the way to have a healthy middle class is to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make. its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access. you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished. Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
Well spoken, bro
IIRC, you are using the term NAT when you really mean PAT. In true NAT, you will have X internal addresses mapped to Y external addresses.
If X>Y, then you may have requests get dropped or mangled.
PAT is 1 external to many internal shifting/translating the port numbers to create a unique channel.
As long as Internal32768, then you should be okay ; you need to reserve a port for each end of the channel. Realistically, most channels will have 80\443 as an end point. On those types of networks, you can get much closer to 65535. Still, a few badly.configured torrent clients can easily exhaust ports and bring the network down with almost no utilization.
You'll see a lot of references to defense in depth. If you browse a CISSP syllabus, you'll see they talk about everything from parking lot lighting to ring 0 code. Between an adequately lit parking structure and ring 0, there are a lot of things you can do. Each one adds a bit more security. You do hit diminishing returns quickly, but host-based firewalls are quick and cheep.
To harden a host based fw, turn on remote logging and have the logging server flag configuration changes as critical.
No one should be doing a configuration change without notifying your change mgmt team. If they get a red line on their monitor, they contact and chew out the offending employee. If no one feses up, nuke the server, restore, and re-harden.
It is important to know that your server administration can also be the change manager on small teams. You just need to have him/her mentally firewall the two jobs.
Um, yeah, talk about misleading.
"Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states - Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island - approved legislation mandating the increase"
Correlation really does not indicate causality when you read the entire article. North Dakota has an oil boom, which is spiking employment. Ohio still grew, despite a MW of $7.95. The whole complaint by the CBO was that jobs would be lost if MW was increased to $10.10 across the ENTIRE COUNTRY. In these 13 states, most are no where close to $10.10/hr.
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.
Can this be used as precedent to dismiss all the pending RIAA and MPAA lawsuits? What about reversing past suits whose victims are already in the body count?
Don't I wish.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
