Greg F
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Greg F
-
-
The "markets" continue to implode.
-
Clinton. In Benghazi. With the YouTube video.
That is the wrong Clinton. Has to be a president. For example:
Clinton in the Oval Office with a cigar.
-
Corporations pay taxes.
They don't really, they pass the cost on to the end user of whatever they are selling.
-
As news of the layoffs broke on Wednesday, the city of Philadelphia fired back with evidence that the tax is also creating jobs. Philadelphia's soda tax has been used to fund expanded pre-K opportunities, creating about 250 jobs for teachers and support staff, the city said in a release sent out minutes after the news of layoffs broke.
Well there is this:
I guess it's all about where your support comes from.
Lefties lie.
At Brown’s stores, many of which were established in places previously designated as food deserts, beverage sales are down 50 percent. Jeff Brown said he’s had to cut 5,000 to 6,000 hours of employment per week, the equivalent of about 280 jobs. Beverages are the biggest category in a grocery store, he said, with 4,000 products. When consumers drive outside the city to find cheaper prices, Brown said he’s losing the non-beverage portion of their carts as well.
How stupid are politicians?
[beverage companies] are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer...Simple economic facts that appear to be beyond politicians limited cranial capacity:
1. Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them.
2. The end user always pays the tax.
-
As water cools, at standard pressure:
It contracts until you hit 39 degrees. At that point, it's at it's highest density (1g/cc).
Below 39 degrees, it expands.
At 32 degrees, it freezes. Ice is, of course, less dense than water.
Below 32 degrees, ice contracts.
See chart. The maximum density of water is at 39 degrees (about 4C).
That is for fresh water. This is for sea water.
-
If you grew up in WNY in the 70s and 80s, this was the norm. Every middle class and lower kid spent a decent percentage of their time in a bar with their parents. It was one of the few places you could actually get a glass of pop or play a video game because it was pretty rare to have them at home, so as a kid we really looked forward to those trips.
In the early/mid 60's my parents had season tickets to the Bills games and I managed to go to a couple of games a year. We took a bus to and from the game from the Town and Country bar/restaurant. When we got back from the game everybody hung out at the bar for a while celebrating what was more often than not a win. I remember a fog of cigarette smoke and sucking down as much soda as I wanted. For a kid not even 10 this was heaven.
-
SS will be revamped at some time.
Since the Federal government prints the currency, the solution will be the age old one of inflating away the real value while simultaneously rigging the CPI. The states OTOH don't have that luxury.
-
lol
News to me.
Amazing how there has been more discussion about Sweden in the last week on Fox than over the last 20 years.
As a long time Reason reader the change in the past year has been astounding. The comments directed at the Reason staff and authors have been brutal (and deserved). Many more have stopped donating. Some of the long time commentators have left in disgust and have set up their own web site.
-
Did I write the article? I just posted an article from a former libertarian outlet ...
FIFY
-
I'm not certain about the radio stations themselves - that article claimed that they don't pay royalties on broadcast music, but I would tend to question why they should if what they're doing is promoting that music, so that part of it might be a big heap of BS.
BMI radio stations royalties payment plan.
BMI uses performance monitoring data, continuously collected on a large percentage of all licensed commercial radio stations, to determine payable performances. This census information is factored to create a statistically reliable and highly accurate representation of feature performances on all commercial music format radio stations throughout the country. Royalties for performances of works in the BMI repertoire that occur on United States commercial radio stations will be paid according to the following rules:The article said:
"Big radio corporations make billions of dollars from music but pay nothing to artists and producers," the GrammyPro website says.
So a special interest group web site lies and the journalist never even questions it. Conclusion, being a wordsmith does not require critical thinking skills.
-
The recording industry itself looks like they're trying to force payment from radio stations for airing their music - which might be a reasonable request, since the radios stations play the music and collect all the ad revenue.
Radio station have been paying royalties for, like forever. Back in the 80's (I think it was ASCAP) would call business's and try to get put on hold. If the on-hold music was covered by copyright the business would get a threatening letter and bill to pay royalties. I knew bar owners in the 70's. If you had cover bands play at your bar you were suppose to pay royalties.
-
-
PFSense can also serve as Proxy Server and NIPS
Those are fine if your time has no value or your employer doesn't mind you spending gobs of time chasing down moving targets. Or. I can pay a modest subscription fee that keeps track of those moving targets, keeps my appliance updated, and allows me to block a application or class of applications with a simple click on a check box for thousands of applications. Simple economics.
-
If you're using cisco routers, you're doing it WRONG.
PFSense for the win. Free and customizable software based on BSD.
Get with the program.
PFSense is a firewall/router. The router function is useful if don't have a layer 3 switch and "router on a stick" is your only option. For example, say you have 4 LAN segments which are almost always VLAN's (virtual LAN's) in your network.
LAN1 - 192.168.1.0/24
LAN2 -192.168.2.0/24
LAN3 -192.168.3.0/24
LAN4 -192.168.4.0/24
For a device on one LAN segment to communicate with any of the other LAN segments you need a router. To use PFSense as a router each LAN segment would have to have a port connected to the PFSense box. The individual connections would typically be 1Gb. This is called 'router on a stick'. If for example your servers are on LAN4 with heavy traffic from LAN1 and LAN2 trying to access the servers you have a 1Gb bottleneck getting to the servers from LAN1 and LAN2.
OTOH, with a layer 3 switch the switch does the routing. Separate LAN segments reside on the same switch as VLAN's. The switches back plane speed is in excess of the combined bandwidth of all the ports. A 48 port Gb switch back plane will be capable of routing at least 48 Gb/sec thus no bottleneck. The PFSense box would just be connected to a port on the switch and the only traffic going to the PFSense box would be Internet traffic.
On medium to large systems the firewall is not the router. Like it or not Cisco owns this part of the router market. In the high end firewall market I know Juniper Networks is one of the market leaders, I don't think Cisco is.
PS: An important feature that has emerged in recent years is Layer 7 (application) filtering which appears to be lacking on PFSense. The ability to easily block social networking sites or applications like Dropbox or Team Viewer has become increasingly important. The fact that I can pay a rather modest subscription fee for someone else to keep track of that constantly changing environment makes PFSense a non-starter for any corporate network I am going to work with.
-
I'm not replying to any of this until you convince me of 1 thing:
That you actually understand what a domain is.
Now that is incentive to not even try to explain it to you. So I won't.
Also, you might want to check the link I provided: from Cisco. I assure you there are no $50 routers there.
Cisco doesn't make consumer stuff.
I've gotten to know many Cisco, and F5, and Dell people over the years ...
Nobody cares who's lawns you mow.
-
We've already established above that you think switches do things they don't do. All you've done in both subsequent posts above is backtrack....and go googling for things to try and play CYA.
Back from you butt hurt. What has been established is you don't have a clue past the $50 home router you have. Even that is doubtful.
I'm not gonna waste bits tracking and reply to your entire backpedal. I am going to pick out some of the dumber things you said. for their humor value:
1. This all started because you said "there is no server"(or routers). Switches do everything. Now you are linking to a vid about a DNS SERVER?
So, what, did you think we forgot? Post 1000 links: You're not walking this idiocy back.Since you seem to lack even the most basic cognitive skill I will have to remind you what that was in response to:
"Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up?"
What you clearly don't understand is the network determines the bandwidth or speed. A network is composed of switches/routers. DNS servers are irrelevant. DNS requests will constitute significantly less than 1% of your network traffic. Average web page is around 1MB, DNS request to get the address is under 1kB.
2. Unequivocally?
All you have unequivocally shown is that you can do what I told to you do, literally: "google DNS Server". You proven again that you still don't understand how things actually work. You can coordinate some of the key words into sentences. But coordination is not the same thing as command.Sheesh ... a lot of words with no meaning.
3. For example: DNS's DO NOT do what you say they do. Jesus. The word DOMAIN is in the name of thing. What is a domain? Or, let's use your example: http://www.google.com. Using that, please define domain.
Go watch the video again. You may have to rinse and repeat so that it sinks in.
4. Yes, what a surprise that your own 3 (internal) DNS severs, aren't publicly facing. This, right here, shows it all in a nutshell. How the hell does a DNS server do what it does, if the "public" can't access it? How do we get to http://www.google.com, if by your own, albeit shoddy definition above, a DNS doesn't send us there?
My DNS servers are not public facing because I don't want the public accessing them. They are for the clients on our internal private network only. That crappy little router you use to connect to the Internet also has a DNS server built in that isn't public facing. Don't believe me? Check your IP settings. The DNS server will be your crappy little routers address. The only requests that can be sent to your crappy little routers DNS server have to come from you internal private network. IOW, the DNS server in your crappy little router is not public facing. To understand how you get to google.com watch the video again.
None of this yap contradicts my original statements:
a.) Clearing traffic off of ALL (DNS) servers, in general, but specifically off servers responsible for propagation/maintenance of address is literally in everybody's best interest.
b.) The notion that somebody would intentionally slow that activity down, NO MATTER WHAT, and especially regarding who paid for what. is buffoonery.
The bottle neck is the network, not the ability of DNS to resolve your requests.
4. "Routers don't assign addresses" Wait: you can't seem to make up your mind, do these various terms you throw around actually combine more than one thing,or don't they? Find me a DHCP-only, "commercial"
appliance. I wanna buy one(you can't). No: we call them Routers, because we have for a very long time, and one of things they can do is DHCP. 
Go ahead and use my link(Cisco) and find me a DHCP machine, since...according to you: " In the commercial world these functions are not usually combined in one box". Yeah, and Cisco hasn't been doing exactly that, and getting into the software business because of it, for the last 10 years.
Make up your mind. You carelessly explain that DNS servers are combined with...stuff...when they aren't, AND, tell me that DHCP is sold separately?Any server (Windows, Linux, Solaris) can be setup as a DNS or DHCP server.
How to setup Linux DNS server.
Configuring a Basic DNS Server + Client in Solaris 11
Windows DNS Server Configuration
Note: In Windows DNS is usually integrated with Active Directory although DNS can be installed as a stand alone service.
All the above can also be setup as DHCP servers.
Once again you prove your ignorance claiming a "DHCP-only" doesn't exist when it clearly does. Your crappy little router is just a combination router/switch/DNS/DHCP/NAT firewall box with limited functionality. For example, your crappy little router lacks the flexibility to configure almost all of the possible DHCP scope options but is simple enough for even you to setup.
5. In ALL cases: a switch STILL doesn't do everything, and it never will, no matter how much buffer it has. There will ALWAYS be something called a DNS server, and always be something called a router, and it will NEVER make sense to combine their functionality into a mere switch. And yeah, if CISCO ever does that? I WILL know better than them, because I already know better right now.
Go ahead and prattle on. The fact remains that you said "there is no server"...when servers, of all sorts, ARE the internet.
Despite showing you previously that DNS doesn't work like you think it does. That routers are not DHCP servers just because you happen to have one in that crappy little box of yours. Nor did I say a switch does everything. The fact is Cisco, as well as every other switch manufacturer, makes Layer 3 switches (usually called edge switches). Layer 3 switches have routing tables so technically they are routers cost determining how extensive the routing tables can be configured.
Finally, it makes sense to combine DNS, router, DHCP, a switch, and NAT (sometimes wireless) into one box for consumer uses as there is no chance that someone like OC could possibly understand how any of it works.
-
The US military still thinks it is on:
Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military
Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts. Here's how.
By Laura Parker
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 7, 2017
NORFOLK, VIRGINIATen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the worlds largest naval base.
All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.
Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Departmentand seems as good a setting as any to consider the fate of climate science and the military in the new political era in Washington that will set the bar for how climate science is pursued by the government.
The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again..."
What a bunch of ignorant crap.
Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built.
Just plain wrong. The author is either ignorant, a liar, or both. The relative sea level has risen due in large part to the fact the land is sinking.
Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region
Relative sea-level rise measured at four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal stations (fig. 2; table 2) averaged 3.9 mm/yr from about 1950 through 2006. At the Sewells Point tidal station in Norfolk, Va., rising sea levels have been recorded since 1927 (fig. 14; table 2). Sea level at Sewells Point rose at an average rate of 4.4 mm/yr from 1927 to 2006, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.27 mm/yr (Zervas, 2009). In comparison, global average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sealevel rise (rise due just to increases in ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time (Boon and others, 2010; Sallenger and others, 2012), the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate (Bindoff and others, 2007, p. 410). The difference between the average sea-level rise computed from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr) and the benchmark global rate (1.8 mm/yr) is 2.1 mm/yr, which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidence at the four NOAA stations. These numbers indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the southern Chesapeake Bay region. Rates of land subsidence vary with location, as can be seen from the different rates of sea-level rise at the four NOAA stations and the variable rates of subsidence measured by Holdahl and Morrison (1974).
While the land is sinking it has nothing to do with CO2. In fact, the sea levels were rising at the same rate prior to the time when CO2 was suppose to start having an effect (1950). Then again, sea levels have been rising for the last 20,000 years.
Surely you don't think the Defense department is so stupid that they don't know the land is sinking. So keep posting crap by a wordsmith with no scientific training and accepting it as gospel.
By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
</sarc> Now there is a real credible organization. </sarc>
Why just last week the preeminent scientist Kenji Watts joined The Union of Concerned Scientist.
Seems all you need is a credit card and your dog too can join.
If perhaps your public school education failed you on how science is suppose to be done this lecture by the late professor Feynman might be helpful.
-
NeolIberalism is regulatory capture.
Tom may have to reprogram his bot for Dr. Sack. Might need to buy him a dictionary too.
-
This thread was a lot more fun when Greg was pwning OC. But then he ran away and now the thread is about EII's eating habits.
-
That's because they are strict on it. Yanking kids out in middle of year willy nilly will raise red flags, etc... Yeah they screwed up. But, parents that seem to be swayed by emotion can be grilled hard.
If they just give all homeschooling parents the benefit of doubt, get lax, I bet you see those scores drop.
Make sure the parents are truly dedicated and know the task. Yeah... And get that fixed w/the in school teachers too!
You do seem to have an aversion to facts. Instead you substitute "swayed by emotion" as if it is fact. It isn't. Followed by predictions like "bet you see those scores drop". When you actually make predictions that come true I might listen to you. Until then I can only conclude you are the one "swayed by emotion".
-
Okay Sue. It says data from the IRS and Pew Research. Do your own homework. Sorry I dont have an easy peasy hyperlink, but you can find it.
I had already done my homework. I was more interested what fake news site you retrieved that garbage from. In your chart of the Federal spending 34% is retirement benefits which including Social Security and federal employee pensions. Medicare is another 28%. Think Florida. In fact most of the money you think goes to the states in fact goes to individuals. Medicaid makes up another 16% of the total. Oh, and the states are not sending anything to the Federal government, those revenues are from individuals (~80%) and corporate (~ 20%). You are essentially making an idiotic argument blinded by your political religion.
Ironically the leftist that prop up this crap will also argue for a 'progressive' tax system. You know, the more you make the higher percentage you pay. This is supposedly to help the poor. Things like Medicaid. Then complain when money from a blue state taxpayer goes to a red state poor person.
-
I am hard on homeschooling. I think it should be extremely vetted.
The hard data confirms quite clearly that homeschooled children do better than any other group. Perhaps you should be more concerned with the schools occupying the bottom of the pile.
-
Check this out.
Why do people hate the Fed?
Deplorables, Red State welfare states should love some Fed:
The Deplorables especially should love: Cali, Illinois, Mass, NYS, & Minn... The Fed & these states listed are keeping the bellyachers afloat.
#RedStateHypocrites
#Ungrateful
Could you please supply a link for the source of the graph?
-
Not disputing homeschooling.
Certainly didn't appear that way and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Government is watching you through your TV
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
From the WikiLeaks link:
A speaker is a coil of wire inside of a magnet, a dynamic microphone is also a coil of wire inside a magnet. You can use a speaker as a microphone fairly easily. Talkback speakers are one example of a speaker serving both functions. OTOH, It is not possible to turn a LCD display into a camera. Unless you have a camera connected (or one built in) they can't watch you.