Y2HH

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) yes, jesse jackson has so much power Ah, yes, the Ostrich defense! While I'm being sarcastic, what I said actually happens, I've seen it. Not that I care anymore, but I won't pretend both sides of the aisle don't bend the rules/regulations of voting like so many of you are doing in this thread. It's like the blind leading the blind.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:45 AM) No one has said that. It already does get prosecuted. But take the diecast example for instance. Imagine if there was a consistent liberal push to close down these voting machines right before an election that happen to coincide in a wealthier, and by and large, republican area. We didn't take away their right to vote, we just shut down the closes voting stations and had them have to drive 1 town over. No one's rights were taken away, they just had to put in extra effort to vote. And if there's one thing we know about rich people as opposed to poor people, they ALWAYS put in more effort. And, surprisingly, voting in that district falls from the times before it. But that's not a problem, because you may have just prevented several fraudulent votes, and people still COULD vote. No problem here. That's ok, Jesse Jackson will ship busloads of them to the working voting stations, free of charge, so long as they vote exactly as he tells them too. No problem here is right, problem solved.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) Amazon.com is cutting off all of its affiliates from California. With Illinois, New York, and California now on the list in addition to a number of smaller states, Amazon' affiliate program pretty much must be close to no longer existing. A number of them have jumped to other retailers and there's been talk of Walmart making moves on a lot of them. Until Amazon can't hide from this, it won't affect them, just the businesses they cut off. Amazon won't skip a beat, they'll still sell the same stuff, they'll just ship it from farther away, which means nothing to them because their shipping contracts give them flat rates. In the mean time, these small businesses are hurting, because a huge avenue for sales was chopped off on them. And while it's nice that Walmart and others are talking, they're not doing...so the small businesses in question continue to suffer. Also, even after Walmart (if they do it), begins an affiliate program of their own, it has to be built, programmed into their website, the inventory system has to exist, etc...and then the company in question needs to learn all over again how to use it. If anything, they (the states) should have said, while we are enacting this sales tax law, we will grandfather all businesses that would be affected by it for 6 months so they can plan a viable a transition, and/or find other retailers to affiliate with...I think that would have been much more acceptable to me.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 06:31 PM) I want to do it for experience mostly. So as I understand it, I can simply plug in my server into my router under one of the LAN ports of my router then follow your directions of assigning IPs for the certain tasks? Currently my setup is: Cable Modem --> Linksys WRT54G router --> Lan Port 1 = Server, Lan Port 2 = Workstation, and everything else wi-fi. When I attempted to install Server 2003 this past weekend, I was able to install it, but none of my other machines could read it, nor was I even able to connect to the internet with it at the very least to obtain updates. Ah, ok...for the experience. I'll see what I can do to help then. Your hardware setup is fine. What you need to do is login to the Linksys, and configure a shared connection (where the Linksys acts as the gateway to the internet). Here you will configure a DHCP network for all of your internal machines, that way they will all be on the same subnet and be able to openly communicate with each other...however, you will still have to open the necessary security settings on the workstations/servers themselves. For example, all of your machines should have similar IP's on the same netblock: These numbers are all RFC1918 (fake internet addresses reserved for internal networks), and are just examples. You could statically assign these IP's, however, since you are already using an DHCP setup for this, you may as well just use DHCP reservations to auto-assign IP's to servers/printers which you always want to have the same IP. Server: 10.11.12.2 (Create a DHCP reservation for this machine, bound to it's MAC address, this way it always has the same IP) Workstation #1: 10.11.12.3 Workstation #2: 10.11.12.4 Printer: 10.11.12.10 (Create a DHCP reservation for this printer, same as above, so it's IP never changes) Gateway: (The Linksys) 10.11.12.1 (Usually, using .1 is standard practice for gateways in most organizations/companies) After you do this, you will need to check the firewall settings on the servers/workstations to make sure they can see each other, to start, you might want to just disable the software firewall on your machines, it's not needed anyway. Nothing from the outside world will be able to route into your machines until/unless you assign port mapping on the router, so it doesn't matter anyway. I recommend also assigning the DNS servers via the Linksys, too. Use Primary: 8.8.8.8 and Secondary 8.8.4.4 (These are Googles public DNS servers, I recommend them as they're always easy to remember the IP addresses of. After you bring up the network in this way, verify communications via a CMD prompt, and just type: ping x.x.x.x (where x.x.x.x is the IP of the various servers/workstations on the network), you should get icmp replies to this if they can see each other. After communication is verified, you can then begin "networking" by trying to share a folder (for example), on your file server, then, to access that shared folder, on any of the other workstations, go to start, run and type the following: \\x.x.x.x\ (where x.x.x.x is the IP address of your file server, it's also possible you can try to access it by name, it will send out a L2 request to see if anyone responds, for example ping inamedmyworkstationChester -- the workstation named that will probably reply with it's IP, etc.) As a default, you could also just trying accessing the shared drives Microsoft defaults onto everything (in their infinite wisdom), to do this you'd browse to the file server or workstation in question the same way as above but tag on c$ for the c drive, or d$ for the d drive. \\x.x.x.x\c$ or \\x.x.x.x\d$ This will probably request an administrator user/pass, but it default exists on every Windows computer, and basically gives you access to the entire filesystem. Oh, on the fileserver, you will need to make sure the server and workstation services are started -- to check this, click start/run, and type in services.msc -- if the server service isn't running, start it/set it to automatic, same with workstation, etc...

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) I know a couple of people here are great IT people. What I want to do is simple. I want to setup Windows Server 2003 in my house to act as an application server and file server. I also want to be able to access the internet on all machines. I have an old laptop that I will be using that meets the requirements. I have a few basic questions. How would I connect it. I've searched high and low on the internet, and everywhere I go, I can't find an answer. Even an example. So can someone tell me how it would look in order to get the functionality I want. I have 2 laptops, a PS3, Xbox 360 which all will be wireless, and a desktop that will be hardwired. Again, I want the internet, to share files, to share applications and to share printers(though this I know how to do). I have experience with Active Directory and such. I'm using Server 2003 because it's free for me and my laptop does not meet the requirements for Server 2008. I think I understand what it is you want to do, but the question is why do you want to do it? There was a time that a file/application server was a necessity out of lack of workstation processing power, but as it stands today, the only thing you'd really be doing is slowing yourself down if you want to go through the app server for everything you do. Accessing the Internet is as simple as just creating a wireless/wired network that assigns a range of DHCP ip's and shares a single access point (usually the router itself would have your ISP assigned IP address on it, and it would assign the range of DHCP addresses to whatever workstations/servers that connect to it), for your printers and whatnot you can reserve specific IP's from the DHCP table so they will always get the same IP, you do this via the MAC address of whatever system in question. For the file server, you'd merely create the necessary usernames/passwords, enable file sharing, and set the permission on the shared drives/directories. This would be another server you want a DHCP ip reserved for, so it always has the same IP address and when you want to use it, you know where it will always be. If you want browsing around your network to be truly easy, simply enable NetBIOS on every machine, it would simplify things a lot. If you do not want to use NetBIOS, because it's quite old now, you'd merely enable Computer Browser services on every machine on the network (if it's still called that), so they can see each other when you go into "my network", or "my network places" as I think it's called today. As for the "app server" part of the equation, it would be easier to just install the app on every machine and use it that way, versus sharing the applications through that server.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:45 PM) Ok, I'll keep repeating untrue things. Voter ID laws are a necessary step to prevent voter fraud. Voter fraud is rampant in this country. Voter ID bills do not discriminate against African Americans or the poor. The Republican party wants to encourage minorities to vote and would never dare take steps to intimidate them away from their legal right to vote. Roll of the eyes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) If you're running a filter the electricity cost is probably on the order $10 a month on its own, but you're not directly seeing that as a line-item even though you are paying it. (You see, oh, my electric bill went up in the summer, that's air conditioning right?) People shock their pool every week? THat sounds painful. I only run the filter when it's in use, so it's not running all the time. People tend to over-shock and over-filter their pools, such as leaving the filter on for hours on end even when it's not in use. But yes, the electricity cost was not calculated into the sum, however, the electricity costs are not that much. It doesn't take much juice to run what is a relatively small filter.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) I have a tangential question: HOw much does it cost you monthly to maintain a pool? When my wife and I move to FL in a year or 2, I have declared a pool in our backyard is a must. After you get the essentials...which of course depends on the type of pool you get, maintaining it is very cheap and very easy. Essentials: filter, vacuum, solar cover, off-season cover/bubble (which of course may not be as necessary in FL). Maintenance: Shock treatment, PH increaser/decreaser, slow release chlorine tablets. These don't cost all that much, but I don't have prices off the top of my head. So, it probably costs me ~10$ to maintain it per month. People tend to overshock their pools, which is a waste. They sell testers, and so long as your levels read normal, there is no need to re-shock the water every week like a lot of people do, even when it's not necessary.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) Refer to this post. Well, we agree on this...but we don't agree on the why or how. You think it's because they're brainwashed and cannot think for themselves. I think it's because they're lazy and don't really care. It's probably somewhere in the middle. But I'd say I'm 1% more right than you are. So once again, I win. Y2HH - 104, BS - 0 I.E. I'm the Yankees. You are the Cubs. Owned. In hindsight, BS, you should have beat me up when you had the chance...since you're like 8 feet tall and I'm like 5'7".

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) I figured that most of it would be from people with long-term or incurable things like cancer or something like that. I think about half would be, but I think the other half suffer from a lifetime of bad choices. People with incurable diseases tend to not last long, so even if they're expensive, it's a very short term expense. It's people who live in very poor health but stick around for 40 years that cost the system.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) When garbage is marketed to people from an early age what do you expect the majority of people to gravitate to? It starts with sugar and HFCS infused cereals and goes all the way to fast food chains on every corner of every major street in America. The lobbies for meat, dairy, and corn have a ton of pull and they are able to offer that crap at ridiculously low cost. I'm not buying this. You have a point, to a degree, however, this is exactly why they do it...you build an entire faction of people that hand them an excuse on a silver platter...and they run with that excuse. I grew up with fast food, sugared cereals, etc...in an era of almost no care (the 80's) when commercials basically said whatever they wanted to say and there weren't many governing bodies watching them, and I turned out fine, because I don't lean on excuses to make poor decisions for myself, when I know they're poor decisions. A lot of people DO lean on such excuses, especially when society makes the excuses acceptable. Even stupid human beings know what's what...they're not animals, they're a step above, and they KNOW what they're doing is bad for them, they just don't care.

Tax cuts are bulls***, mostly because the idea behind them doesn't really exist. What I mean is, the idea behind tax cutting is simple...more money into the pockets of the people who buy things/do things, which of course, gets the economy churning. On paper, this idea makes perfect logical sense...and it would work if they actually cut taxes. However, what actually happens is the federal government cuts taxes, but the city/state/town/etc turns around and raises them...so there really is no more money going into the pockets of citizens...they're just shifting the collector around. Be it in soda taxes, water taxes, entertainment taxes, sticker fees, parking rates, property taxes, you name the added tax. In the end, if the fed lowers your tax by 5%, you can be damn sure it will rise 5% elsewhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Top 1% responsible for 20%, and top 5% responsible for 47.5%, bottom 50% only gets 3% of total... Nope, not wealth, health care spending. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/on...011/06/study-/1 Full study at link http://nihcm.org/images/stories/NIHCM-CostBrief-Email.pdf And I bet lifestyle choice contributes to more than half of those cases, with some simple changes/choices, they'd fall off those charts. I'm not one to talk about "lifestyle" choice, because I tend to eat what I want, however, I also eat relatively healthy most of the time. It's about moderation, and sadly, no matter how much educational material exists, and no matter how much you put it on the minds of people, they'll do what they want to do anyway. The best and only true preventative care is NOT seeing a doctor, but making simple decisions of what you eat/drink and how much.

BlagOwned.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) Really? What species? How old is it? What's the carbon isotope signature? (The scary thing is...that's exactly what my brain did the first time I read this post). You are a sick man. Sick. Sick. SICK.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 25, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Cuz that was kind of when I put 2 and 2 together for the first time and realized you guys aren't actually that far apart on the political spectrum (if I could place you on there at all). He's way on the left, but you're not really on either, you're kind of almost an anarchist Well, this is true. Depending on the issue, I could be either/or democrat/republican...and I feel that's the way everyone needs to be in order for sanity to return to this system. Then again, I also think the system itself is so beyond corrupt, that it's unfixable at this point. Removing "royal blood" from the equation, our system has returned to what it was before we came here...another form of monarchy. Where the rich/connected hold office, make the laws, and know what's best for us (read: them), and that's that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:36 PM) When we all went out drinking that time it was really funny to me to see you and BigSqwert nodding and smiling and agreeing about the ACA being s***ty. Why was that funny?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Yea I know, like I said I was pretty disappointed in the outcome, but it was a major imprvement from a pretty basic html site we had running beforehand. I actually have a Mac I could use for iWeb, I'll have to check it out again but it seemed somewhat limited in terms of features/design. Are there more templates or whatnot that you can download? There are no more templates than what comes with it, as a matter of fact, Apple is no longer supporting iWeb, but the ones they have are good enough to get a decent looking website up, for free...just delete all the Apple logos, etc...it won't be a custom website, but it'll honestly be good enough to pass for a usable site, etc. You may not like it in the end, but I'd say at least look at it as a possible alternative, it could end up saving you a few bucks, and at least then you'd have the power to edit it, etc...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) So the developer I used for a student organization has not been very helpful with us and the product he came up with is adequate, but not spectacular. Im looking to improve this website or create a new one (on a new domain since the university one has been a PITA to access). If you are or know someone who develops sites please let me know. This is the site we currently have: http://www.business.illinois.edu/pct/ and if it's something that could be updated then that would be great too. We are a student organization so compensation wouldn't be fantastic but we have some funds for the project. Again, any ideas in terms of web hosting too are appreciated. Im pretty new to this stuff but at the same time the most advanced in the student org (which isn't saying much at all). Honestly, you could make a better website on your own with iWeb that comes with every Mac...and I'm not kidding. And when I say anyone could use that software, I mean even your grandmother.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) In which case we're better off letting them die. (Edit: yes, I know, that's unfair. It just is amazing how many posts of yours lead directly to the conclusion that the U.S. is better off if 15% of its population are too broke to receive health care). Wow, that was a quantum leap of conclusion jumping. Just because he said if we added high risk people the prices may rise doesn't mean he wants them to die... You should invent the jump to conclusions mat.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:47 PM) but that insurance is already subsidized by being tax free. And adding more people onto exchange would make it cheaper, you'd have more buying power the more people are on it. Adding more people to the exchange *should* make it cheaper...doesn't mean it will. Also, what is the delay in seeing price drops on exchanges to seeing price increases? Are we assuming this won't follow the big oil model where oil prices rise and gas prices immediately leap, where as when oil prices fall, it takes months for gas prices to fall?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) There's one more thing that hasn't been brought up here just yet. If a significant number of companies wind up dumping insurance and shunting people into the exchanges, presumably this means that the exchanges have become cheaper than privately purchased insurance to the point that it is worth paying the fines and taking away the tax credit. This would, if it happened, be the most successful health care cost control effort in history. You'd take a market that on average refuses to insure 45% of the population and costs vastly more than large group purchases and suddenly have it insuring almost everyone and being cheaper than large group purchases. That would be an incredible cost control victory. That would be an incredible human victory. That would be a huge economic boon to just about everyone. Which, of course, is why it won't happen. It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense... I see what you are trying to say here, but there is no guarantee the opposite doesn't happen. Just because companies dump people onto the exchanges it doesn't mean it's because its cheaper than private insurance at all...it could just mean that they'd rather you and I foot the bill than them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:18 PM) BTW, the shift away from employer-sponsored insurance has been happening for a while. The absurdity is the claim that Obamacare is going to accelerate it. Didn't I just go over how much I hate when people call it that?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Then they will have no patients. Simple as that. You think all the doctors in the country will be able to exclude a group that includes the most likely to need insurance? Those doctors are very few in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure every doctor would like to not get medicare rates, but the group is too large to ignore. They'd accept the minimum amount to fill out their missing roster slots...and for every private insurance contract they get, they'd dump another HMO/Medicare patient -- this is exactly the practice many employ now. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER. It's not that you can't, but you shouldn't...however, we do anyway. And preventative medicine is mostly bulls*** in regard to needing to see a doctor to prevent...as it's more of a lifestyle choice. Going to a doctor isn't preventative in most cases...but eating right, exercising, and not doing things to the extreme is preventative. Sadly, these are lifestyle choices many people will not make, despite KNOWING the negatives of not doing so. I went back and elaborated on my claim of preventative being BS, as it wasn't clear what I meant.

It's what has me disenfranchised about our political system...and it's not just the politicians, but the people...because the people put them there. 95% of democrats I know have NO opinions that do not side with the democratic agenda. 95% of republicans... ^^^ see the above. The surprising thing is people cannot see the problem with this. I have quite a diverse group of friends, most of which do not get along politically. My republican friends cannot understand how I can defend Obama at times, and my democratic friends cannot understand why I sometimes disagree with the things he's doing... That phenomenon, at least IMO, makes NO sense and wasn't the intention of our system.