That's only because dumb people (like you) don't realize in the first place when it would be useful. p2p comms with both ends behind a NAT? Sure, i mean routing your shit through a 3rd party server also makes it "work", but it's arguably undesirable, except for dumb people (like you, again) who do not care. Happy Skyping.
God dammit. I see what you're trying to say, but seriously this is so wrong. It's no big deal (i.e. easy to implement) to have End-to-End connectivity and still not be "exposed" to the oh-so-hostile Internet.
It is a big deal (i.e. impossible) to actually get End-to-End connecitivity when you do need it but find yourself behind a (carrier grade) NAT.
Breaking this one fundamental principle for the added comfort of being able to just deploy a NAT and feel reasonably secure is totally not worth it. Really, stop.
That doesn't need "no power"; it harvests the energy from the signal itself. A similar thing could be imagined with digital equipment, although admittedly just a razor blade and a pencil doesn't get you very far in that situation.
Anyway, the detector radio, while interesting, cannot pickup FM, so I don't see how it is relevant here.
They're doing whatever they perceive to be most profitable. If they are assuming closed source is the way to go, then closed source it is. Who gets to decide that, ultimately? The shareholders. What are the shareholders' objectives? Hint: It starts with R and ends in OI
So you have never noticed malware being installed without you noticing, uh-huh. That's the kind of circular reasoning I'd expect self-proclaimed "power users", running Windows no less, to engage in, indeed. Also, you don't understand seem to understand the pertinent attack vectors for shit.
Nice try, but we're already seeing it in consumer^Wautomotive-grade cars. You just don't notice it conciously because it ain't failing, ironically. Feel free to prove me wrong with anecdata
Slashdot Mirror
That's what happens when you rely on a vendor instead of a ratified standard.
A hundred times this.
Too much overhead? It has less. In particular because the FCS is no lo longer computed over the (always changing) hop limit.
He presumably meant to multicast the link-local multicast address, causing the link-local nameservers to advertise themselves as such.
That's only because dumb people (like you) don't realize in the first place when it would be useful. p2p comms with both ends behind a NAT?
Sure, i mean routing your shit through a 3rd party server also makes it "work", but it's arguably undesirable, except for dumb people (like you, again) who do not care. Happy Skyping.
As someone who's not really a networking guy
Yeah. It's showing.
God dammit. I see what you're trying to say, but seriously this is so wrong. It's no big deal (i.e. easy to implement) to have End-to-End connectivity and still not be "exposed" to the oh-so-hostile Internet.
It is a big deal (i.e. impossible) to actually get End-to-End connecitivity when you do need it but find yourself behind a (carrier grade) NAT.
Breaking this one fundamental principle for the added comfort of being able to just deploy a NAT and feel reasonably secure is totally not worth it. Really, stop.
By definition? What?
No. Just, no. A NAT and a firewall are entirely different things and used for different purposes. Please familiarize yourself with basic networking.
an entire internet[] worth of
Since a /64 is the default allocation, that's more like an entire internet squared worth of it.
You know what NAT defeats? End-to-end connectivity.
That doesn't need "no power"; it harvests the energy from the signal itself. A similar thing could be imagined with digital equipment, although admittedly just a razor blade and a pencil doesn't get you very far in that situation.
Anyway, the detector radio, while interesting, cannot pickup FM, so I don't see how it is relevant here.
Someone up the page commented that DAB radios are power pigs.
What comment are you referring to?
I don't have experience with DAB but if true it wouldn't be good in a natural disaster situation.
On the first glance, I don't see why that should be the case.
It does not
Both analog and digital radio need power. Neither uses the Internet as carrier.
A solar panel the size of a CCD sensor would probably suck. This way, at least it has a lens in front of it :-)
Power over Ethernet also requires a Power over Ethernet infrastructure.
They're doing whatever they perceive to be most profitable. If they are assuming closed source is the way to go, then closed source it is. Who gets to decide that, ultimately? The shareholders. What are the shareholders' objectives? Hint: It starts with R and ends in OI
yes. 32-valve, too.
Way to miss the point.
Besides, 'assembler' is a part of the toolchain. The language(s) are called 'assembly'.
You're not "embracing technology", you're embracing a goddamn consumer product. Geez.
Look at the pertinent CVEs related to (in particular) adobe flash, java, the usual suspects. I'm not doing your homework for you.
So you have never noticed malware being installed without you noticing, uh-huh. That's the kind of circular reasoning I'd expect self-proclaimed "power users", running Windows no less, to engage in, indeed.
Also, you don't understand seem to understand the pertinent attack vectors for shit.
No, I have seen some utterly substandard garbage code written by Ameriancs, so according to my anecdote it's probably from there.
Nice try, but we're already seeing it in consumer^Wautomotive-grade cars. You just don't notice it conciously because it ain't failing, ironically. Feel free to prove me wrong with anecdata
Considering the fact we cannot eliminate the probability of bugs from far simpler software meant to solve far simpler problems
Sure we can, you just don't get to see it in consumer-grade software because it's too expensive.
Try aerospace, or military.