 | | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
| (...) Blocking outgoing port 25 doesn't do anything for security. At most, it means that infected machines can't be used to send out spam (unless they're using the U's SMTP server). But it won't stop anyone from *getting* infected. That said, it (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: New MOC: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank
|
| (...) Agreed. The series and OVAs reek of missed opportunity. (...) Have to disagree here. The first twenty minutes, yeah, but the problem is more that they used a slower style and assumed that the characters would garner enough sympathy to carry (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: New MOC: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank
|
| (...) Yeah, I've seen *some* of those too. Definitely more humour, and focus on the daily routine of the special vehicles unit, but I think I prefer the movies more. Patlabor 3 was crap though. It took the style of the Patlabor movies in a new (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
| (...) Well, it really *is* for security. Or, bandwidth-savings, at least. The alternative is to send armed strike forces around to install patches on every MS Windows system attached to the network every time a new hole is found. (23 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
