I was thinking the exact same thing. Firewalls block specific network functions not query functions in a database. That's done by ACLs and basic user security as far as I know. I guess they could of set things up in a funky database where the DNC stores the most basic info in a core database that has sim links to each campaigns individualized data in their private networks. I guess you could block what is being viewed that way by preventing the main database from even reaching the individual sub-databases held by each campaign. In the most basic sense I guess you could use a firewall for that. Seems clunky though. Then again I am not a database person.
I wouldn't say they are perfectly legal. I do not think that most of those working for Uber or Lyft have commercial insurance to be transporting people for profit and do not follow DOT guidelines for safety and drug testing. That's part of why they are getting in trouble.
Honestly Ive never had a upgrade from any os work correctly. If you know what you are doing then always do a clean install after backing up your data. If you dont know how to do it, pay someone who can or sit down and shut up.
I support 900 machines and about 2 dozen servers on a community campus. If the college has done things right. The only access any student will have from their personal laptops is internet access.
Generally the classroom/lab computers will have no interaction what so ever with a student computer. We go out of our way to prevent the student computers from infecting or even being able to connect to the academic\business networks. The students do have a wireless network which depending on the campus implementation of their wifi shouldn't have problems with linux.
A very reasonable explanation but there is still a huge glaring problem I see.
The proceeds from the sale of the buildings will be spent on that fiscal year to close any gaps in the budget. There wont be any left over money so where are they getting the rent money from? Where are they going to get the money to buy them back in a few years? The money is gone and can only be made back thru taxes they collect. Which obviously are not enough.
As you say its enough to help get some cash on hand to pay the bills but for only that year. If they are dumping the proceeds from the sale into the current budget then the money is gone. You kind of contradict yourself saying that they will be using the money to pay rent and have something to start with to buy the buildings back but they are doing this to pay off their current debt. The fact is though they wont have a dime of that money left over in a year if they do pay their debts with this money. Kind of a catch 22 I would say.
Thats why it only partially makes sense to me. Its nothing but a loss.
Im confused here... If they sell the buildings then lease them from the new owners do they not have to pay rent? Then in a few years when the economy is better wont they have to buy it back for more then they sold it for? Real estate generally increases in value not decreases. It would make the whole deal a loss for the state then wouldnt it? I see no way that this would help out with their yearly budget except for the year they sell it. After that its only going to be a net loss.
It seems to me this sounds like a bs accounting scheme. Kinda similiar how a few states say its cheaper to keep a murderer in prison for life then it is to execute him within a few years. Its looks great in the short term but in the long run it costs much more.
It just sounds really stupid to me. I can understand trying to get some money to make ends meet but this whole deal makes me scratch my head.