Greg F

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.

The "markets" continue to implode.

That is the wrong Clinton. Has to be a president. For example: Clinton in the Oval Office with a cigar.

They don't really, they pass the cost on to the end user of whatever they are selling.

Well there is this: I guess it's all about where your support comes from. Lefties lie. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-17/philly-soda-sellers-say-tax-has-reduced-sales-by-as-much-as-50 How stupid are politicians? 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.

That is for fresh water. This is for sea water.

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.

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.

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.

FIFY

BMI radio stations royalties payment plan. The article said: 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.

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.

Anybody remember this?

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.

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.

Now that is incentive to not even try to explain it to you. So I won't. Cisco doesn't make consumer stuff. Nobody cares who's lawns you mow.

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. 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. Sheesh ... a lot of words with no meaning. Go watch the video again. You may have to rinse and repeat so that it sinks in. 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. The bottle neck is the network, not the ability of DNS to resolve your requests. 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. Windows Server DHCP Solaris DHCP Setup Linux DHCP Setup 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. 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.

What a bunch of ignorant crap. 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 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. </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.

Tom may have to reprogram his bot for Dr. Sack. Might need to buy him a dictionary 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".

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.

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.

Could you please supply a link for the source of the graph?

Certainly didn't appear that way and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.