Not vying for the last word, but it certainly isn't a rare situation to need NAT today. Extra IPs are expensive or unobtainable for most people. Very few have only one device on their network, I'm thinking game consoles, iPhones, Blu-ray players, and on and on. Even single people probably have multiple network devices - and almost everyone want the flexibility of allowing guests to use their network. All things requiring NAT in most situations on IPv4, but it shouldn't be that way on IPv6.
I don't think that applied to the/. crowd in college. Computer -> tuition -> cheetos -> alcohol -> textbooks was the order for me. I had a much better chance of passing almost all of my classes with a computer, but no textbook, then vice versa.
Hint: The textbook could usually be 'found' online in PDF form, shared, copied in the library, checked out from the library, used in various lab or just ignored wholesale, depends on the class.
My point is both of those reasons for using NAT are wrong-headed. Network segmentation doesn't require NAT, put your backend servers behind a strict firewall and only let them communicate with your hardened, front end proxy or web server or whatever server. What does NAT add to this scenario other then a warm, fuzzy feeling?
As for multiple IPs, ISPs must start giving out more addresses with the transition, I think everyone should demand as much. My point is, this transition wont work as well as it should if security "philosophy" isn't changed at the same time.
While I agree with the sentiment, once you get more then about 5 employees in an office making a decent salary, that 1811 seems cheap compared to the possibility of down time that could be blamed on me.
Getting calls because you're crappy consumer or SOHO router crashed sucks. Especially when you're talking about VPN routers at branch offices. Cisco is overpriced and obnoxious to deal with, but I've never had a Cisco router crash or even look at me funny in 7 years.
I don't think we cared much about clock speed, even in the days of Netburst vs K8, hell the spreads were bigger when the 3.2 GHz P4 was common. Then it was Dollars vs Performance or TDP vs Performance, just like it is now.
With regards to the overpriced motherboards and DDR3? Not really, that's not why I would pay for an i7 system, it's the processor.
Also, the AM3 Phenom's will be backwards compatible with AM2+ and support DDR2 & 3. Not saying that makes it better then i7, but it certainly is nice for platform cost and upgradibility.
So basically you just stated you have a vague understanding of what NAT is and some edge cases where it makes some poorly educated people feel better about their security.
If some people think obscuring your IP address is an important security "philosophy" fine, but let the rest of the world move on.
As if a hacker gives a damn what your private IP address is, you've probably already setup a static route to several servers on ONE IP! It's more like a honeypot.
I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT doesn't provide security,
It does however provide privacy.
No it doesn't.
To most people it provides, at most, privacy between the number of computers in your residence. If you thinking about work or school, well, then you gain nothing, even assuming your access to the internet isn't filtered and logged wholesale, your IP assignment almost certainly is.
If you're actually concerned about privacy, you should be using something like Tor that was designed to provide privacy. NAT absolutely was not.
I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT != security
NAT doesn't provide security, it happens to disallow uninitiated inbound connections since it doesn't know where to send them, but so does any good firewall.
Yes, a single point of access control, like a router. But it doesn't have to do NAT anymore.
Sure, they might run a transparent proxy on some services, but the point is they will be able to setup two way services without idiotic things like UPnP. IE they won't need dynamic port translations because every device will have it's own ports and specific applications can be allowed in advance.
For example, try to run multiple, simultaneous Xbox Live connections without UPnP. (It will probably work these days, but you won't be able to make two way connections ie host games, voice chat reliably, etc). This wouldn't be a problem if they both had their own address and port space.
All you have to do is reference your sources - assuming you weren't using dubious ones or misrepresenting information. I've seen plenty of articles only reference old fashioned books, and somehow they are still online.
Thanks for the reply, almost everyone I know and work with is from a broken home, a divorced parent or both, so please forgive my assumption.
Without going into detail, I have close family that falls under most of the same traits; you'd be surprised how many people in this world appear to be textbook psychopaths once you get to know them. Regardless, I still have family that chooses to berate and denigrate people who are obviously psychologically damaged, and frankly it's unfortunate.
When we were playing Halo2 as team members, his favorite tactic was to hold back until he heard one of the others engaged in fire and then come in at an angle to clean up and get the kills. That is a very good strategy if you are only looking out for yourself... which appears to be a personality trait he picked up from his mother. But I digress.
As a child of dysfunctional and quickly divorced parents, let me suggest you never let you child hear you talk like that. Even if they agree, you will only work to alienate him or make him feel guilt for showing love to HIS MOTHER.
You cannot talk morality into people - especially when you are condescending about a person they probably love very much. Live by example, it's much more effective.
Sorry for the rant, but that's the kind of self righteous talk that makes it almost impossible for me to communicate with my father.
Well yes, on XP. On Vista, you can use UAC to access Windows Update, whether or not your individual account has admin privileges.
Of course, the use of UAC cannot be condoned on Slashdot.
Well considering you said case, which I think a few people would assume to mean court case and the LATimes article didn't come up first with the query I used, nor did it refer to a specific case with a white and black man, I thought I'd ask for some clarification.
Here's a link I found interesting after looking at that, though:
http://leitermaninnocent.com/
The difference is still slim. I don't know the exact details of Psystar's implementation, but they don't need to modify OS X to run on a vanilla PC, they can just modify the BIOS and use compatible components.
As for the EULA, they hope that it's unenforceable - myself and I imagine the rest of Slashdot do as well.
Frankly, I believe you sell a product and thats the end of it, you can suggest what I do with it, but certainly not force it with the power of law.
black and white != grayscale
I think the general point is, compress and filter picture sufficiently that any small edit or color variation doesn't register then compare to a hash.
Slashdot Mirror
Not vying for the last word, but it certainly isn't a rare situation to need NAT today. Extra IPs are expensive or unobtainable for most people. Very few have only one device on their network, I'm thinking game consoles, iPhones, Blu-ray players, and on and on. Even single people probably have multiple network devices - and almost everyone want the flexibility of allowing guests to use their network. All things requiring NAT in most situations on IPv4, but it shouldn't be that way on IPv6.
I don't think that applied to the /. crowd in college. Computer -> tuition -> cheetos -> alcohol -> textbooks was the order for me. I had a much better chance of passing almost all of my classes with a computer, but no textbook, then vice versa.
Hint: The textbook could usually be 'found' online in PDF form, shared, copied in the library, checked out from the library, used in various lab or just ignored wholesale, depends on the class.
My point is both of those reasons for using NAT are wrong-headed. Network segmentation doesn't require NAT, put your backend servers behind a strict firewall and only let them communicate with your hardened, front end proxy or web server or whatever server. What does NAT add to this scenario other then a warm, fuzzy feeling?
As for multiple IPs, ISPs must start giving out more addresses with the transition, I think everyone should demand as much. My point is, this transition wont work as well as it should if security "philosophy" isn't changed at the same time.
Well if someone wanted to make a large print, they would probably want a higher res.
Personally, I'm surprised they didn't 'shop the stray hairs off his lapel.
Except for the LED part, that was my 6th grade science project. Damn, wish I got a grant for it.
While I agree with the sentiment, once you get more then about 5 employees in an office making a decent salary, that 1811 seems cheap compared to the possibility of down time that could be blamed on me.
Getting calls because you're crappy consumer or SOHO router crashed sucks. Especially when you're talking about VPN routers at branch offices. Cisco is overpriced and obnoxious to deal with, but I've never had a Cisco router crash or even look at me funny in 7 years.
I don't think we cared much about clock speed, even in the days of Netburst vs K8, hell the spreads were bigger when the 3.2 GHz P4 was common. Then it was Dollars vs Performance or TDP vs Performance, just like it is now.
With regards to the overpriced motherboards and DDR3? Not really, that's not why I would pay for an i7 system, it's the processor.
Also, the AM3 Phenom's will be backwards compatible with AM2+ and support DDR2 & 3. Not saying that makes it better then i7, but it certainly is nice for platform cost and upgradibility.
So basically you just stated you have a vague understanding of what NAT is and some edge cases where it makes some poorly educated people feel better about their security.
If some people think obscuring your IP address is an important security "philosophy" fine, but let the rest of the world move on.
As if a hacker gives a damn what your private IP address is, you've probably already setup a static route to several servers on ONE IP! It's more like a honeypot.
I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT doesn't provide security,
It does however provide privacy.
No it doesn't.
To most people it provides, at most, privacy between the number of computers in your residence. If you thinking about work or school, well, then you gain nothing, even assuming your access to the internet isn't filtered and logged wholesale, your IP assignment almost certainly is.
If you're actually concerned about privacy, you should be using something like Tor that was designed to provide privacy. NAT absolutely was not.
I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT != security
NAT doesn't provide security, it happens to disallow uninitiated inbound connections since it doesn't know where to send them, but so does any good firewall.
Yes, a single point of access control, like a router. But it doesn't have to do NAT anymore.
Sure, they might run a transparent proxy on some services, but the point is they will be able to setup two way services without idiotic things like UPnP. IE they won't need dynamic port translations because every device will have it's own ports and specific applications can be allowed in advance.
For example, try to run multiple, simultaneous Xbox Live connections without UPnP. (It will probably work these days, but you won't be able to make two way connections ie host games, voice chat reliably, etc). This wouldn't be a problem if they both had their own address and port space.
Don't even get me started on IPSec, NAT-T etc.
I assume this is supposed to be funny?
All you have to do is reference your sources - assuming you weren't using dubious ones or misrepresenting information. I've seen plenty of articles only reference old fashioned books, and somehow they are still online.
Thanks for the reply, almost everyone I know and work with is from a broken home, a divorced parent or both, so please forgive my assumption.
Without going into detail, I have close family that falls under most of the same traits; you'd be surprised how many people in this world appear to be textbook psychopaths once you get to know them. Regardless, I still have family that chooses to berate and denigrate people who are obviously psychologically damaged, and frankly it's unfortunate.
When we were playing Halo2 as team members, his favorite tactic was to hold back until he heard one of the others engaged in fire and then come in at an angle to clean up and get the kills. That is a very good strategy if you are only looking out for yourself... which appears to be a personality trait he picked up from his mother. But I digress.
As a child of dysfunctional and quickly divorced parents, let me suggest you never let you child hear you talk like that. Even if they agree, you will only work to alienate him or make him feel guilt for showing love to HIS MOTHER.
You cannot talk morality into people - especially when you are condescending about a person they probably love very much. Live by example, it's much more effective.
Sorry for the rant, but that's the kind of self righteous talk that makes it almost impossible for me to communicate with my father.
Well yes, on XP. On Vista, you can use UAC to access Windows Update, whether or not your individual account has admin privileges. Of course, the use of UAC cannot be condoned on Slashdot.
Well considering you said case, which I think a few people would assume to mean court case and the LATimes article didn't come up first with the query I used, nor did it refer to a specific case with a white and black man, I thought I'd ask for some clarification. Here's a link I found interesting after looking at that, though: http://leitermaninnocent.com/
Then perhaps you'd like to hear about the case in the US where two men one white, one black both had the same genetic markers in the police database?
Link?
The difference is still slim. I don't know the exact details of Psystar's implementation, but they don't need to modify OS X to run on a vanilla PC, they can just modify the BIOS and use compatible components. As for the EULA, they hope that it's unenforceable - myself and I imagine the rest of Slashdot do as well. Frankly, I believe you sell a product and thats the end of it, you can suggest what I do with it, but certainly not force it with the power of law.
Amazon MP3's have no DRM.
black and white != grayscale I think the general point is, compress and filter picture sufficiently that any small edit or color variation doesn't register then compare to a hash.