Idiots who get wounded or killed, testing a bulletproof vest.
I've had Comcast and native IPv6 since the fall of 2012, (about 6 months after they brought it up on Memorial Day). I have had no trouble with it, and about a year ago they began issuing
"You can't take something *off* the Internet; That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool!"
They were available in 37" & 42" under the model numbers LVM-37W# & LVM-42W#, where # was the version number.
They were 1080 LCD units, with *no* tuner.
They had all the usual analog inputs, plus (2) DVI inputs and an HDMI input.
I'm still using the 37" I bought years ago, wishing I'd opted for the 42".
Basically, don't talk to the police without a lawyer present. Period. I mean, I'm not going to stonewall a cop that pulls me over for a broken taillight, but if the line of questioning goes any further than what's immediately relevant to said taillight, that's when I shut up. And you can guarantee that I will be videotaping the entire encounter! Cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth about anything; it's up to you to know what your rights are in a given situation and assert them.
Absolutely true, and here is an excellent 50 minute video with a law professor explaining why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...to be able to have an entry in my contacts named "Spam", add the number of a telemarketer, block it, and never hear from them again.
Caveat: Each time I add a number to "Spam", I must unblock, then block it. Apparently, the blocking action operates only on the numbers that are in the contact entry at the time the block is applied.
I'd like to hear him explain his regret in a little more detail. Was it morally wrong? Was it against civil ethics? Was it anti-democratic? Was it illegal? Or was it that they got caught?
Also, "is regrettable" is basically the passive tense. Does he regret it? Does he thing that the congressional oversight committees are morally culpable for not having stopped it?
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Additionally, what they are doing is interfering with the operation of your own network. I think of it a little bit like a denial of service attack. You're running your network just fine and the hotel is actively launching an attack to prevent it from functioning. It seems like they could detect your network, locate you, and ask you to turn it off or leave. Actively interfering with its proper operation...I'm not so sure.
Not "little bit"; It *is* an active attack that forges packets to de-authenticate your client.
I just noticed something: While I have "Install OXS X updates" set to off, there is another checkbox for "Install system data files and security updates" which was checked. That must be why it installed automatically. But the fact the App Store updates does not show it installed it still lame.
Is that what that is?! I just saw a pop-up telling me an OS X update applied when I returned to my desk. Curious, I checked the updates and didn't seen anything new installed today. I figured it was some malware clickbait popup that came and went from inactivity on my end.
Same thing happened to me.
I have the App Store setting configured to *download*, but *not* install automatically.
It installed anyway.
I verified it by checking the version of the ntpd binary.
And the App Store update tab does *not* show it was installed.
So I went to another Mac, booted it, and immediately brought up App Store updates.
It showed the update, and I selected it for installation.
On that Mac it now *does* show the update is installed.
This is broken behavior.
I have a 2009 Macbook running Yosemite. Note this machine was not available with SSD at the time it was sold. A year ago I decided to put an SSD in it, and being aware of the TRIM issue, I made a point to buy a secondhand *Apple* SSD from a Macbook Pro. Neither Mavericks nor Yosemite will enable TRIM on this machine.
So apparently, not only will OS X not enable TRIM on a non-Apple SSD, but the machine *must* be a model for which there was an SSD option at purchase.
Google "250-XXXXXXXA asa cisco starttls" and you'll find this is almost certainly an ASA preventing TLS as configured on the device. Since it doesn't want TLS traffic, the config is to just mangle the packets. Well known effect, been around for years (5+). The FW admin needs to correctly deploy fixup, allow TLS or simply not inspect esmtp. Simple fix, documented in Cisco doc 118550, among many other places.
You beat me to it. That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. This (for some inexplicable reason known only to Cisco) is the *default* behavior of ASA and PIX firewalls, so really it probably just means that someone that didn't know what they were doing threw a firewall in the mix somewhere. It's an easy fix, but requires messing with policy-maps, which inexperienced admins often find confusing.
At a former job we were having mysterious DNS problems.
I finally discovered an ASA was the problem.
The boneheaded thing was defaulting to dropping any DNS packet with the EDNS0 option enabled.
EDNS0 had been around for *five* years, and we were running the latest firmware.
If a fw vendor can't be bothered to keep up with the protocol standards, they shouldn't be interfering with the application layer.
I remember using ie4 on a sun Solaris box a long time ago. I was thrilled, because it was light years ahead of mosaic and Netscape.
Now? I don't care how good it is. I will never use it again. Microsoft's long established contempt for its users, laws, and even international standards bodies have guaranteed that I will never put anything even resembling trust in them ever again.
Yes, I remember downloading it and running it briefly just for giggles.
There is a sort of complicated story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
(This is a cycling computer.)
Good: It showed all the street detail, *plus* it showed the offroad trails not shown by the Garmin maps.
Bad: The navigation functionality no longer worked.