• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • Just clarification here, a NAT is NOT a firewall. It will drop packets originating from outside the network if the ports aren’t forwarded to an IP simply because the NAT has no idea which device on the network to send the packets to. A forwarded port is you telling the NAT to assume packets coming into a specific port should be forwarded to a specific device. It is acting as a security measure simply by coincidence but not by design. Unlike a firewall it will not inspect any packet payload or attempt to make a security decision on outbound packets. It only routes based on the packet headers.

    A firewall on the other hand actively will reject or drop packets because it is an Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). This is why if your router has a built-in firewall, your NAT will still drop the packets – because it isn’t a firewall nor is it what is being referred to if you disable it.


  • Port 6667 is a typical IRC port. It is sometimes used by remote access backdoors for command and control via a channel (chat room basically) on an IRC server, however, if that port isn’t forward OR you don’t have your PC set as the DMZ Host (you should never do this), then you probably have malicious software on your system.

    If it isn’t forwarded, then your NAT would drop the packets and Malwarebytes would never see it because they wouldn’t be there. Malicious software can forward ports via uPNP and you should turn that off on your router or router/modem combo. It can also make it through if the connection is starting from inside of your network for TCP, which is the protocol that would be used for 6667 normally.


  • Finally. Intuit has been lobbying for years to keep this from happening.

    Derrick Plummer, a spokesman for Intuit, said taxpayers can already file their taxes for free and there are online free-file programs available to some people. Individuals of all income levels can submit their returns for free via the mail.

    A “direct-to-IRS e-file system is a solution in search of a problem, and that solution will unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions of dollars,” he said. “We will continue unapologetically advocating for American taxpayers and against a direct-to-IRS e-file system because it’s a bad idea.”

    And who believes that crap anyway? Intuit markets their solution due to the complicated nature of anything outside of standard deductions and figuring out if you should itemize and how to do that.

    Intuit has spent $25.6 million since 2006 on lobbying, H&R Block about $9.6 million and the conservative Americans for Tax Reform roughly $3 million.

    Now if the states get on board for easy filing online, it’ll be great.


  • OK but do you see the absurdity of the arguments? Jesus.

    Studies previous to over a decade ago slammed whole milk, which is why it was removed in the first place. Only until the last 10 almost 15 years have studies shown correlation with whole milk actually fighting child obesity though no conclusions as the actual ‘why’ have yet been found. Theories in both the biggest meta-analysis study (in English anyway) and some of the latest theorize it may be an indicator of the parents diets that they provide to their kids or it could be that kids simply eat more without whole milk. One study in particular attempted to figure this out by weighting the parents’ BMI’s on a point scale but was unable to really pull a substantial conclusion from it. Take your example of Japan where I think we can agree without me finding any analytics on their diet that it is different enough nutritionally from the US that it is an important distinction, except for a fairly short teen fad, what 7 years ago? Maybe it was a couple of years longer ago.

    But all of that is beside the point. What I was trying to show is the absurdity of Congress’ oversight of nutrition in the school systems. The GOP pushed this forward strictly at the behest of diary lobbyist and in particular a Pennsylvania conglomerate. In their statements, they never mentioned any actual studies and in-fact shat on ‘experts’ multiple times because they have no idea. The entire Santa bullshit from Virgina Foxx sounds almost exactly like a Got Milk? commercial in the 80s with definite the exact same key words.


  • We’ve been warned about this since the at least the 80s maybe earlier. Then when it became more common (still not common I don’t think) that the food pyramid is a sham it explained by school lunches when I was younger didn’t usually seem all that balanced after I thought about it as an adult.

    Couple that with cities that aren’t designed to be walkable and its dangerous to bicycle and it just doesn’t look good.

    But hey, schools are probably going to get to serve chocolate, whole and 2% milk again due to winning arguments like “…fortifying nutrients of whole milk…Protein helps build and repair Santa’s muscles” and “…scientists, experts built the Titanic, and amateurs built the ark.” So, that’ll help, right?







  • We will see if a modern Congressional Hearings does anything. Normally it seems to pander to some agenda or another instead of leading to relevant laws and accountability. I expect there to be some stern words and the media reports it as a win and perhaps some weak calls for Clarence Thomas to step down at best but I don’t expect to see anything actually happen. I would be surprised if we even get a formal censure from Congress for all the good it won’t do.



  • I rent in a medium-high-density non-US housing complex.

    Well, we’re talking about home ownership here. If you’re renting then your landlord/management company or whatever decides policies that are compliant with your laws. If they allow some sort of HOA-like structure where residents can participate in a sort of ‘council’ that advises them or has some sort of authority of the landlord, then so be it.

    I did however, bring up condos, where a person essentially has an ownership stake in a housing complex but other people also have ownership of their dwelling and the land is shared. It absolutely makes sense to have an HOA then. Someone’s got to arbitrate in shared spaces and since the person that owns the dwelling doesn’t have a landlord, then well, it would be terrible not to have an HOA.

    Local governing bodies are not necessarily based in racism

    I didn’t say they were. I am stating a fact, that in the US, HOAs started as way to enforce gentrification. There were actual racist deed agreements and binding covenants. This isn’t an opinion or speculation.

    Sources:

    University of Washington
    Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society
    Housing Matters
    Denver Post
    Business Insider

    But experience has also told me that this works better when the overarching legal systems are more accessible and corruption-resistant.

    OK but that’s not everyone’s opinion. My neighbors and I get along fine without an HOA, except for the lady who denied receiving my package once even though I had it on camera and my wife’s curtains are hanging on her windows now but an HOA wouldn’t have solved that anyway.



  • HOAs started as a way to keep neighborhoods white only. Now it’s a way for developers to have a super majority vote to keep giving themselves contracts and a way for control freaks to control their neighbors. They started as bad actors and now some are bad actors for other reasons.

    Not all HOAs are terrible but there aren’t a lot of actual accountability in-spite of some laws to stop corruption and there’s not a ton of benefits for most except perhaps for condos.

    For example, I wouldn’t mind having an HOA that contracts rates for trash, lawn care, creates and maintains a park with some stuff for kids, maintains beautification of non-homeowner areas and maybe even has security patrols. You know, actual amenities to keep the neighborhood nice and convenient for the home owners. Not an HOA that makes sure that shampoo bottles in people’s bathroom windows aren’t visible, front doors have to match some aesthetic or have to approve decks and sheds for people’s yards.