Glad I could do that for ya!

MLK is one of my personal heroes, right up there alongside Nikola Tesla and Samuel Clemens. Which is what makes it hilarious, for me, when I bitch about Jackson and Sharpton, and someone has the nerve to call me a racist for it.

I love how the page sells it as "Developed using heatpipe technology to create a 100% passively cooled environment," right above a picture of the back of the case, which features,

wait for it...

A fan mount!

Gives me a chuckle.

FTFY.

I just put together a box with a $50 mobo and AMD FX-6150 with stock heatsink/fan combo, and it runs at less than 45C all day long.

Suddenly I wish there was such a thing as a Bothan ant...

Like I said, I don't take offense to the opinions of angry adolescents.

Which this "I'm rubber and you're glue" comment of yours kind of cements in my mind as being the actual case, and not just a metaphor for your piss-poor inability to have an adult conversation that doesn't degrade into playground insults.

I'm going to just flat out ignore you now, as I'm becoming more and more certain that just talking to you is a COPPA violation.

Bummer.

Virtual machine maybe?

Re: this comments subject:

- If we had racial equality, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have to get real jobs, rather than become millionaire talking heads who make their bank off the blood of America's black community.

His arguments are, "pay attention to me so I can use the plight of African-Americans to fatten my own bank account."

In fact, that's the only argument he and Sharpton have ever had. I pray, when they die, the ghost of MLK spends eternity bitch-slapping the both of them day in and day out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but PCI compliance doesn't necessarily require a firewall between each system that takes credit cards. It just requires a firewall to protect all the systems that take credit cards. If you have a few POS systems and a SQL server that access credit card info, you don't need a software firewall on each of those systems. You could set up one hardware firewall that protects all of those systems from Internet traffic (and other LAN traffic, if needed).

It depends on what you're talking about, and where. A firewall between the LAN and the Internet, yes. Generally speaking, put it up, and then figure out what needs to be opened.

Beyond that, it starts to get a bit more foggy. Security is often a trade-off between making access too easy for attackers vs. making access to hard for authorized personnel. It's not uncommon for security software to do more harm than good, blocking things that shouldn't be blocked, breaking the networking stack in weird ways. When it comes to software antivirus and firewalls, my view is that you should use the more lightweight, least intrusive solution that meets your needs.

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the original poster is asking about the built-in Windows firewall. Should that be enabled on all machines?

Honestly, determining whether you need a firewall isn't as simple as "yes, always, all the time" or "no you don't need one." You have to know what the firewall is doing, and what security is required. You can set up a firewall, allow all ports to be forwarded through without inspection, and while you have a firewall, it's not helping you. Or you could have a server running a secure OS with only the vital ports opened, without access to anything other than the Internet, in which case a firewall probably isn't doing you a lot of good.

Also, it seems you're talking about a software firewall installed on the server? I wouldn't trust it. If I'm running Internet accessible servers, I generally want separate hardware firewall, and I want to put those servers into a separate DMZ if I can. I might leave the built-in Windows firewall turned on if it's not causing any problems, but if I have to disable it, I don't worry too much about it because I have the hardware firewall.

A properly secured Linux/Unix server should be able to sit directly on the Internet without issues, but you may as well put it behind the hardware firewall if you have the option.

But are we talking about disabling the built-in software firewall on a machine that's only accessible by other computers on the LAN? That's probably fine. You should have some security preventing unauthorized personnel from accessing the LAN, and I would assume the SQL databse it password protected, right?

I guess my bottom line here is this: Since you can't trust a the built-in Windows firewall to actually protect from very much, you shouldn't worry too much about disabling it. Make sure your network is secure without it.

You realize, of course, that a system where one only has "freedom" if they can afford to pay is anything but free, right?

Incorrect.

What you have to look at is what word the founders used to determine the scope; everywhere else in the document, the term, "the people" refers specifically to American citizens. If a provision is meant to apply to everyone in general, they used the words, "all persons" for covered actions, and "no persons" for things the government is prohibited from doing.

You can see this difference between the 4th and 5th Amendments; the 4th reads

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Whereas the 5th reads

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As you can see, there is a blatant and actionable difference between the meaning of those two Amendments - the first one implicitly states that it applies only to citizens, whereas the second obviously applies to everyone within US government jurisdiction.

The only slippery slope here is the one where people think they can re-interpret the meanings of 250 year old words with modern language, ie references to the term "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

Fella.

Pardon me if I fail to take offense to the opinion of an angry little child.

Parappa was nothing but a bunch of quicktime events strung together. Total rip off of 1990's arcade hits like Die Hard: Arcade and Hologram Time Traveler.

Rocksmith is... not that.

A "game" where you connect an actual musical instrument (instead of a plastic toy), and learn rather than play? Sounds pretty novel to me.