I'm not sure how much of the patent garbage from smartphones has gotten into the tablet area, but I would imaging that patent licensing also increases prices.
I think its going to be a bit above the price range you want. Tablets aren't cheap. You might not need an iPad, but whatever you get is still probably going to cost around $300.
It would depend on who is helped and hurt by those actions. If my company was doing nothing wrong, then the leaker should be fired and sued. However, if the company was killing people or something, then they did the world a favor.
These generally have a lack of expandability. Mini-ITX generally has one expansion slot and one onboard, leaving no slots for wifi. Unless it has mini-pci onboard (the form factor used by all the good cards), then you're stuck with no slot for a wifi card.
I use the Routerstation Pro. It has 4 gig ports, 3 mini-PCI, serial, USB, SD, and GPIO.
Generally not for home routing, but worst case, you might be routing 4Gbps on a device with 4 gigE ports. A 200MHz cpu found in older routers isn't going to keep up with that.
A common misconception related to piracy, foss, etc (anything where you are not paying) is that not paying = reducing the number of jobs. In reality, money doesn't just disappear, but rather it is spent elsewhere. Pirating software or using FOSS instead might cut some jobs in the software industry, but, for example, I might spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry. Of course, the effect is largest with businesses which will almost always choose to spend money rather than save it.
Saying that FOSS or piracy or whatever is killing some industry or costing that industry jobs isn't necessarily false, but it doesn't hurt the economy. It's like when cars became popular. Sure, the horse-drawn carriage industry suffered, but the jobs and economy lost were made up for by the auto industry.
I've never understood the obsession with hdmi ports on phones. I have never once felt the need to connect my phone to a TV, and I certainly don't carry around an HDMI cable with my phone. Also, even adobe is phasing out flash on smartphones, so android won't even have that "feature" much longer.
In the US they sure are. Republicans just want to deregulate everything whereas Dems want to give tons of bailouts (both direct and indirect) to the corporations.
I think what he means is that if it only tries to prevent network access but does not properly restrict access to other parts of the system, then the application can indirectly get at least some network access.
What I really love is that Mozilla wants to hide the version number from the end user. If they go through with that, only power users will see the version number. I'm figuring most power users hate their new versioning system, so I really don't understand why they keep it up.
I'm pretty sure that they have enough foresight to enable it. The millions of hacked PCs that would result from that would definitely be enough to make them enable the firewall by default. Even if the early devices don't, manufacturers would take advantage of the situation and would advertise the firewall feature.
The solution to that is to do native dual stack. That way you don't break any IPv4 compatibility while using a clean approach to IPv6. Then, in the future, you stop giving IPv4 addresses once IPv4 falls out of use. The "IPv6 only" devices you speak of either don't exist or are completely niche, and they will continue to be uncommon until IPv4 dies out.
As others have said, a stateful firewall would be ON by default on home routers and would be set to block incoming connections. Device manufacturers aren't stupid.
This is untrue. NAT simply implies some form of firewall which disallows random incoming connections, which is where the security comes from. The security of this would be exactly the same as if I had a non-NAT router which I set to disallow connections from WAN to LAN.
Personally, my router has WAN and LAN interfaces and 2 DMZs. I apply the same rules to the DMZ interfaces as I do to the WAN (no connections to the LAN). The NAT is not necessary at all. No rewriting involved.
You're making the same error as 90% of the people in this discussion. A home NAT router does stateful firewalling. There is absolutely no reason you couldn't configure that same firewall to do the same firewalling minus the NAT. I bet you that when home IPv6 routers become common, the default in most of them will be to disallow incoming connections.
Simply put, NAT doesn't give security, it just implies firewalling which gives security.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how much of the patent garbage from smartphones has gotten into the tablet area, but I would imaging that patent licensing also increases prices.
how the hell am I suppose to remember my VPS IP than?
Maybe this?
I think its going to be a bit above the price range you want. Tablets aren't cheap. You might not need an iPad, but whatever you get is still probably going to cost around $300.
Because you would totally be able to open a top secret drone with simple household tools...
I would fill it with C4 and rig it to blow if unauthorized opening of the drone is attempted. Might as well take a couple of the enemy's guys out too.
This. From what I've heard, it often involves weekends too.
It would depend on who is helped and hurt by those actions. If my company was doing nothing wrong, then the leaker should be fired and sued. However, if the company was killing people or something, then they did the world a favor.
No, because that was not published information.
Except Apple's can be disabled by flipping one switch in the settings, no rooting required.
These generally have a lack of expandability. Mini-ITX generally has one expansion slot and one onboard, leaving no slots for wifi. Unless it has mini-pci onboard (the form factor used by all the good cards), then you're stuck with no slot for a wifi card.
I use the Routerstation Pro. It has 4 gig ports, 3 mini-PCI, serial, USB, SD, and GPIO.
Generally not for home routing, but worst case, you might be routing 4Gbps on a device with 4 gigE ports. A 200MHz cpu found in older routers isn't going to keep up with that.
A common misconception related to piracy, foss, etc (anything where you are not paying) is that not paying = reducing the number of jobs. In reality, money doesn't just disappear, but rather it is spent elsewhere. Pirating software or using FOSS instead might cut some jobs in the software industry, but, for example, I might spend the money on more/better food, thus creating jobs in the food industry. Of course, the effect is largest with businesses which will almost always choose to spend money rather than save it.
Saying that FOSS or piracy or whatever is killing some industry or costing that industry jobs isn't necessarily false, but it doesn't hurt the economy. It's like when cars became popular. Sure, the horse-drawn carriage industry suffered, but the jobs and economy lost were made up for by the auto industry.
I've never understood the obsession with hdmi ports on phones. I have never once felt the need to connect my phone to a TV, and I certainly don't carry around an HDMI cable with my phone. Also, even adobe is phasing out flash on smartphones, so android won't even have that "feature" much longer.
Only the iPod touch.
The iPhone 4 was legitimately the fourth phone, so you could just consider the 4S to be the 4.5th iPhone so that the iPhone 5 is still the 5th iPhone.
In the US they sure are. Republicans just want to deregulate everything whereas Dems want to give tons of bailouts (both direct and indirect) to the corporations.
I think what he means is that if it only tries to prevent network access but does not properly restrict access to other parts of the system, then the application can indirectly get at least some network access.
What I really love is that Mozilla wants to hide the version number from the end user. If they go through with that, only power users will see the version number. I'm figuring most power users hate their new versioning system, so I really don't understand why they keep it up.
I sometimes open hundreds of tabs yet I have no such instability, and I use it on Windows, OS X, and Debian.
I'm pretty sure that they have enough foresight to enable it. The millions of hacked PCs that would result from that would definitely be enough to make them enable the firewall by default. Even if the early devices don't, manufacturers would take advantage of the situation and would advertise the firewall feature.
I think its more for when you only use a single device. Believe it or not, there ARE people that connect their computers directly to a modem.
The solution to that is to do native dual stack. That way you don't break any IPv4 compatibility while using a clean approach to IPv6. Then, in the future, you stop giving IPv4 addresses once IPv4 falls out of use. The "IPv6 only" devices you speak of either don't exist or are completely niche, and they will continue to be uncommon until IPv4 dies out.
As others have said, a stateful firewall would be ON by default on home routers and would be set to block incoming connections. Device manufacturers aren't stupid.
This is untrue. NAT simply implies some form of firewall which disallows random incoming connections, which is where the security comes from. The security of this would be exactly the same as if I had a non-NAT router which I set to disallow connections from WAN to LAN.
Personally, my router has WAN and LAN interfaces and 2 DMZs. I apply the same rules to the DMZ interfaces as I do to the WAN (no connections to the LAN). The NAT is not necessary at all. No rewriting involved.
You're making the same error as 90% of the people in this discussion. A home NAT router does stateful firewalling. There is absolutely no reason you couldn't configure that same firewall to do the same firewalling minus the NAT. I bet you that when home IPv6 routers become common, the default in most of them will be to disallow incoming connections.
Simply put, NAT doesn't give security, it just implies firewalling which gives security.