I don't like the idea of "banning" users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.
Yes yes, of course the US can do all the war stuff, including war crimes, but unless our sacred institutional leaders all agree to call it a war and then sign the sacred war parchment after the master of arms holds the staff of truth then obviously it's not a war. Great stuff, very compelling world we live in.
You need to understand subnetting. Allowing 192.168.1.0/24 also allows 192.168.1.135/24 In fact 192.168.1.135/24 shouldn't be valid syntax at all, but it is easier to accept it and then let subnet math fix the mistake.
I assume your router is 192.168.1.135 for whatever reason, so as long as your router is contained in the configured iptables allowed network, it'll work with all of the following networks.
192.168.1.135/32192.168.1.134/31192.168.1.132/30192.168.1.128/29192.168.1.128/28192.168.1.128/27192.168.1.128/26192.168.1.128/25192.168.1.0/24192.168.0.0/23... And 22 even larger networks.
If you don't configure a subnet mask for the rule, iptables will accept the IP address you put in as a single host, the /32 is implied. The same behavior would be seen using any kind of network filter, though they may not allow you to specify
192.168.1.135/24, they may require a bit boundary, but mathematically, it's the same.
Why is there a need to comply with foolish laws? I'm sure I type stuff on lemmy.ml or elsewhere on the internet that doesn't comply with some idiot law somewhere in like Myanmar or the DPRK. Why would I concern myself with those laws.
Not black text on white, but light grey/purple on dark grey was pretty popular with Sun Microsystems. I think OG Apple Macintosh used Black on White, or at least close enough colors.
Democrats will stick around. And they will do nothing
If they did nothing that would actually be an improvement. But what they do is make sure they use their seniority in the party to keep newly elected dems from replacing them on committee chairmanships and leadership roles. I.e. Whip and Minority leader.
Sorry. Mea Culpa. I was expressing my frustration with the spirit of the law, making discussion about the details of the law moot. My comment was directed at the contents you posted, not at you for posting them.
Yea it's a great way for a congress member to protest. It's visible, you can control the narrative, and it's way more active the boycotting or going to the alternative state of the union put on by notable Pro-Clinton PAC MoveOn.org
Yep. It was 100% planned beforehand, and house leadership knew it would happen. The same thing would happen in the same way if he were carrying a sign that said "white lives matter."
Just FYI this was 100% planned on both his part as well house leadership. He was kicked out last year under similar circumstances. He wasn't kicked out for what the sign said.
I don't like the idea of "banning" users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.