The activation requirements can be very dangerous too, if it decides that your install is somehow not legit (which can occur due to false positives) it can cause a denial of service and shut the machine down. Linux doesn't self-destruct like that.
You'll never get a critical mass of independents, as people get more and more frustrated with the incumbent parties eventually they will be angry enough to vote for someone else in sufficient numbers - at which point you will end up with a far right party.
Refusing to follow orders is also an effective route to the hangman's noose...
If you were a german in the 1930s or early 40s you'd most likely have followed orders too, regardless of how abhorrent the orders were. The alternative to following orders is that you become the victim of the abhorrent acts.
Otherwise what alternative do you have? Going on the run isn't any fun, and even if you did manage to escape from germany you might not receive a warm welcome anywhere else. And you'd have no idea how the war would turn out at that point either, if germany was victorious then wherever you fled to would be captured and you'd end up being returned to germany to face whatever punishment they deemed suitable for you as a deserter.
On the other hand if you do follow orders the germans wont harm you, and if germany loses the war you're far more likely to receive lenient treatment at the hands of the british than you would in germany.
We have a strong self preservation instinct, and in situations like this you're naturally driven to take the option with the greater chance of survival.
The difference is between intentionally refusing to work, and unintentionally not working due to an incompatibility. It appears that apple intentionally broke otherwise working third party screens, and hence a justified fine.
The term "bricked" usually means "broken to the extent that the device owner cannot fix it themselves"... Clearly anything can be repaired given the skills, tools and parts, something may be in a state that it could be fixed but the owner is not aware how and it requires someone else to provide information or updated software in order to do so.
There were quite a few games back in the day where the game itself ran fine on A1200 (or A4000, accelerated amigas etc), but the copy protection scheme didn't and caused the game to crash. Cracked versions ran just fine, while legitimately purchased versions crashed.
Just like every homeowner is expected to buy connectivity and addressing from their isp? DNS is like email, if you want your own identity you can register your own domain, if you're content to use the same domain as thousands of others then there are many free options, and nothing to stop the isp from allocating a subdomain to their customers.
Plus there is always.local and llmnr/mdns if you don't need global reachability of your hostnames.
Yes while a firewall explicitly blocks packets by design according to your specified rules, NAT loses packets due to breaking the way the system works.
People receive threats, especially public figures, and these threats are empty and meaningless.
These threats took place before the internet existed, they were made in person, left somewhere (eg graffiti, horses head on the doorstep), sent anonymously through the mail or made via anonymous phonecall. Those who make threats are usually incapable of carrying them out, and those who actually want to carry out such people will generally not broadcast their intention to do so because it increases their chance of being caught.
Tracking down those making such threats is a waste of resources, most will be stupid kids who have no ability or intention to act upon them, and anyone who actually does intend to perform some kind of physical attack actually has to get close to their target in order to carry it out - at which point they are far less anonymous and easier to catch.
"saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms"
The thing with anonymity is that your gender and race do not need to be disclosed, you can claim anything or be anyone. Everyone is equal online and that's the whole point.
As for the word "attack", you can't attack anyone online, you can only throw insults at them, it's only words from random people who you don't know and who don't matter to you. Ignore them, respond in kind or better yet just laugh and ridicule their feeble attempts to insult you.
People need to take the internet for what it is and embrace the anonymity. You can be who you want to be online, if you feel that being a woman online makes you weak and opens you up to "attacks" then pretend to be a man and see what happens. If someone anonymous doesn't like you then so what? You can be just as anonymous as them, they can't do anything to you.
People troll because they get a response, by running away crying about being "attacked" you are giving them a response and making them feel powerful because they had the ability to affect you. If you laugh at them and show them that not only are you suffering no negative effects from their trolling, but you are actually finding their pathetic attempts to insult you amusing then they will soon give up anyway.
Often the people doing the risk assessment don't fully understand the technology in place, and thus make faulty assumptions about its capabilities and the risks thereof.
Surely the insurers will insist that they take reasonable steps to prevent malware infection, or else significantly hike their premiums? The insurers should be backing up what you were saying about keeping backups etc.
I always found it stupid how "recycling" these days seems to involve smashing glass bottles, melting them down and then producing new glass bottles... Seems an extremely energy intensive process compared to just washing the bottles and refilling them. Deposit bottles should be cheaper than melting down or disposable bottles, it just needs infrastructure in place which again shouldnt be hard - a truck delivers the full bottles to a store, the customers return to the store to buy more products and in doing so take their empties, the truck returns to where it came from containing empty bottles instead of being totally empty.
As i understand it, clear linux is a distribution optimized for modern hardware, with all packages compiled with newer compilers and a lot of legacy cruft disabled etc... So it would be interesting to see how it compares to gentoo, which is also usually configured in that way.
It's also interesting how badly ubuntu fares in many of these benchmarks, despite being only a small step behind clear linux in terms of kernel/gcc versions in use.
What the customer may notice is that performance increases or some things such as video, voice conferencing and real-time games now work better than they once did yet they are unlikely to know why. Millions of users have been transitioned to IPv6 automatically without having or needing to care.
Well that's the problem, users aren't aware of the advantages of ipv6 and aren't demanding it from their providers. If there are user-visible reasons for using ipv6, then users will start demanding it and providers will have to offer it.
Google for example often run beta features for a limited audience, if they were to make these beta features ipv6 only to start with then word would soon spread and people would start demanding ipv6 or recommending providers that already offer it.
It also ensures the existing providers can lock up the market, because new upstarts cannot get any addresses, or can't get enough to provide a comparable service to the existing providers.
If done properly, ipv6 addresses are easy to remember
xxxx:xxxx - your prefix which covers your whole company. xxxx:xxxx:123 - your site id xxxx:xxxx:123:10 - vlan id xxxx:xxxx:123:10::1 - first device (probably router) on vlan 10 at site 123 xxxx:xxxx:123:10::666 - another device
So you can calculate the majority of the address based on where the device is, your prefix will always be the same and then your devices can be numbered 1 upwards... I typically use the first 3 addresses for routers, first 100 addresses for other infrastructure devices etc, dhcpv6 pool is always 1000-2000. I know that the switches are always starting 10, printers always start 20, etc. If you properly plan your addressing, then ipv6 becomes much easier than v4.
Of course, you shouldnt need to worry about addresses anyway, you should be using dns.
Exchange does not require netbios, and fully supports ipv6 - infact it can break quite badly if you turn off ipv6 on the server...
IPv6 addresses are easier to remember once you have a moderately sized network - you have a single prefix, and then you pick a sensible addressing scheme underneath that. With ipv4 any larger organisation or provider will have many different blocks, making it extremely messy. We have a/32, then a/48 for each site, and a/64 for each vlan within the site which is designated by the vlan tag id. Much simpler and you know at a glance where on the physical network a given v6 address resides without having to look it up.
You misunderstand how privacy addressing works... Periodically your system makes outbound connections from a different address, so a single user might use hundreds of different addresses within a/64, and once the address has been rotated there is no way to tell what address that device has now. You'd only be able to track to the prefix, which is no different than ipv4 when you track to the nat gateway.
The RIAA and copyright cops HATE ipv6, they love NAT because it breaks p2p protocols. A centralised service is much easier to shut down, and requires much more bandwidth to operate.
The average user has no clue how to firewall anything anyway, and many ipv4 nat routers provide mechanisms for internal devices to arbitrarily open ports... Just look at the prevalence of security cameras and other iot devices on the internet with default passwords. If anything, ipv6 will help in this regard because it will make it far more difficult to locate these devices. Scanning the entire ipv4 internet is easy and fast, scanning even a single/64 of ipv6 space will take years.
Consumer level routers do not allow inbound ipv6 connections by default, although many offer mechanisms to open connections on demand - this is no different to the ipv4 status quo.
ISPs will have no idea how many devices you have because of the privacy addressing, whereby your system continuously allocates new random ipv6 addresses within your/64 address space. They will however still be able to use techniques like monitoring for cookies and other unique identifiers, which they can already do with ipv4.
If you've never had a problem with ipv4, then your use of the internet must be pretty limited...
Getting new ipv4 addresses to host anything is now much more expensive. NAT breaks many things, so now instead of being able to connect back to your machines at home you have to rent a server somewhere and open a tunnel from your home network to the hosted server. p2p file transfers and p2p communication (eg gaming) are broken by nat, you have to involve an intermediate host - either a server you rent for yourself, or a third party who can snoop on your traffic. And no, NAT is not a security feature - its a kludge to cope with a lack of addresses, a stateful firewall is what will prevent unwanted inbound connections and all consumer level ipv6 routers deny unsolicited inbound connections by default.
When your using a third party server like this, not only do you give up your privacy to the owner of that server, but you also rely on their goodwill to keep the server running. Despite the fact that quake was released in the 90s, today i can fire up a quake server on a non natted address, share the address with my friends and we can have a game. This doesn't work if you are behind nat, and games which require developer-supplied servers probably wont still be playable 20+ years later.
For work i have point to point vpn links between our central office and our clients networks to facilitate devices that we manage for them... It has to be an outbound connection initiated from the clients to our network because many of our clients are behind nat gateways controlled by the ISP so we can't connect directly to them and the provider charges a lot more for a dedicated ipv4 address. Also on the vpn links, many companies use overlapping internal address space (192.168.0.x etc), which becomes very messy when we're trying to address devices over the vpn as there will be many networks and devices using the same addresses. IPv6 solves this nicely as everything can have unique addresses.
NAT also causes other problems for ip based blacklists and ips systems - traditionally you could block abusive users by their ip address, if you do that now there might be thousands of customers from the same provider behind the same ip. If you block one address you block all that provider's customers and if you leave it open you invite further abuse. Conversely many innocent users find themselves on blacklists because other users of the same provider did something or became infected with some kind of malware.
What's needed is for large companies like google and facebook to offer benefits to ipv6 users, such as early access to new beta features etc, and then promote this... Currently very few users are demanding ipv6, so most isps can get away with not offering it. If large numbers of users start asking for ipv6 and switching to providers which already offer it, then providers will very quickly start implementing it.
Microsoft actually state that the xbox one will work better with ipv6, so that's at least a start and some xbox users ask for ipv6.
Slashdot Mirror
The activation requirements can be very dangerous too, if it decides that your install is somehow not legit (which can occur due to false positives) it can cause a denial of service and shut the machine down. Linux doesn't self-destruct like that.
You'll never get a critical mass of independents, as people get more and more frustrated with the incumbent parties eventually they will be angry enough to vote for someone else in sufficient numbers - at which point you will end up with a far right party.
Refusing to follow orders is also an effective route to the hangman's noose...
If you were a german in the 1930s or early 40s you'd most likely have followed orders too, regardless of how abhorrent the orders were. The alternative to following orders is that you become the victim of the abhorrent acts.
Otherwise what alternative do you have? Going on the run isn't any fun, and even if you did manage to escape from germany you might not receive a warm welcome anywhere else. And you'd have no idea how the war would turn out at that point either, if germany was victorious then wherever you fled to would be captured and you'd end up being returned to germany to face whatever punishment they deemed suitable for you as a deserter.
On the other hand if you do follow orders the germans wont harm you, and if germany loses the war you're far more likely to receive lenient treatment at the hands of the british than you would in germany.
We have a strong self preservation instinct, and in situations like this you're naturally driven to take the option with the greater chance of survival.
The difference is between intentionally refusing to work, and unintentionally not working due to an incompatibility.
It appears that apple intentionally broke otherwise working third party screens, and hence a justified fine.
The term "bricked" usually means "broken to the extent that the device owner cannot fix it themselves"...
Clearly anything can be repaired given the skills, tools and parts, something may be in a state that it could be fixed but the owner is not aware how and it requires someone else to provide information or updated software in order to do so.
There were quite a few games back in the day where the game itself ran fine on A1200 (or A4000, accelerated amigas etc), but the copy protection scheme didn't and caused the game to crash. Cracked versions ran just fine, while legitimately purchased versions crashed.
Just like every homeowner is expected to buy connectivity and addressing from their isp?
DNS is like email, if you want your own identity you can register your own domain, if you're content to use the same domain as thousands of others then there are many free options, and nothing to stop the isp from allocating a subdomain to their customers.
Plus there is always .local and llmnr/mdns if you don't need global reachability of your hostnames.
Yes while a firewall explicitly blocks packets by design according to your specified rules, NAT loses packets due to breaking the way the system works.
People receive threats, especially public figures, and these threats are empty and meaningless.
These threats took place before the internet existed, they were made in person, left somewhere (eg graffiti, horses head on the doorstep), sent anonymously through the mail or made via anonymous phonecall. Those who make threats are usually incapable of carrying them out, and those who actually want to carry out such people will generally not broadcast their intention to do so because it increases their chance of being caught.
Tracking down those making such threats is a waste of resources, most will be stupid kids who have no ability or intention to act upon them, and anyone who actually does intend to perform some kind of physical attack actually has to get close to their target in order to carry it out - at which point they are far less anonymous and easier to catch.
"saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms"
The thing with anonymity is that your gender and race do not need to be disclosed, you can claim anything or be anyone. Everyone is equal online and that's the whole point.
As for the word "attack", you can't attack anyone online, you can only throw insults at them, it's only words from random people who you don't know and who don't matter to you. Ignore them, respond in kind or better yet just laugh and ridicule their feeble attempts to insult you.
People need to take the internet for what it is and embrace the anonymity. You can be who you want to be online, if you feel that being a woman online makes you weak and opens you up to "attacks" then pretend to be a man and see what happens. If someone anonymous doesn't like you then so what? You can be just as anonymous as them, they can't do anything to you.
People troll because they get a response, by running away crying about being "attacked" you are giving them a response and making them feel powerful because they had the ability to affect you. If you laugh at them and show them that not only are you suffering no negative effects from their trolling, but you are actually finding their pathetic attempts to insult you amusing then they will soon give up anyway.
Like people who used to brag about how low their ICQ number was, or how how their slashdot id is etc...
Often the people doing the risk assessment don't fully understand the technology in place, and thus make faulty assumptions about its capabilities and the risks thereof.
Surely the insurers will insist that they take reasonable steps to prevent malware infection, or else significantly hike their premiums? The insurers should be backing up what you were saying about keeping backups etc.
I always found it stupid how "recycling" these days seems to involve smashing glass bottles, melting them down and then producing new glass bottles... Seems an extremely energy intensive process compared to just washing the bottles and refilling them.
Deposit bottles should be cheaper than melting down or disposable bottles, it just needs infrastructure in place which again shouldnt be hard - a truck delivers the full bottles to a store, the customers return to the store to buy more products and in doing so take their empties, the truck returns to where it came from containing empty bottles instead of being totally empty.
As i understand it, clear linux is a distribution optimized for modern hardware, with all packages compiled with newer compilers and a lot of legacy cruft disabled etc...
So it would be interesting to see how it compares to gentoo, which is also usually configured in that way.
It's also interesting how badly ubuntu fares in many of these benchmarks, despite being only a small step behind clear linux in terms of kernel/gcc versions in use.
What the customer may notice is that performance increases or some things such as video, voice conferencing and real-time games now work better than they once did yet they are unlikely to know why. Millions of users have been transitioned to IPv6 automatically without having or needing to care.
Well that's the problem, users aren't aware of the advantages of ipv6 and aren't demanding it from their providers.
If there are user-visible reasons for using ipv6, then users will start demanding it and providers will have to offer it.
Google for example often run beta features for a limited audience, if they were to make these beta features ipv6 only to start with then word would soon spread and people would start demanding ipv6 or recommending providers that already offer it.
It also ensures the existing providers can lock up the market, because new upstarts cannot get any addresses, or can't get enough to provide a comparable service to the existing providers.
IPv4 has multiple ways of expressing addresses - x.x.x.x, 0x12345678, etc...
IPv4 has extra special reserved address spaces, 224.x for multicast, 127.0.0.0 for local, 192.168 etc reserved for internal use etc.
If done properly, ipv6 addresses are easy to remember
xxxx:xxxx - your prefix which covers your whole company.
xxxx:xxxx:123 - your site id
xxxx:xxxx:123:10 - vlan id
xxxx:xxxx:123:10::1 - first device (probably router) on vlan 10 at site 123
xxxx:xxxx:123:10::666 - another device
So you can calculate the majority of the address based on where the device is, your prefix will always be the same and then your devices can be numbered 1 upwards... I typically use the first 3 addresses for routers, first 100 addresses for other infrastructure devices etc, dhcpv6 pool is always 1000-2000. I know that the switches are always starting 10, printers always start 20, etc. If you properly plan your addressing, then ipv6 becomes much easier than v4.
Of course, you shouldnt need to worry about addresses anyway, you should be using dns.
IP addresses are for computers, DNS is for people. Most users will NEVER have to type an ip address.
Exchange does not require netbios, and fully supports ipv6 - infact it can break quite badly if you turn off ipv6 on the server...
IPv6 addresses are easier to remember once you have a moderately sized network - you have a single prefix, and then you pick a sensible addressing scheme underneath that. With ipv4 any larger organisation or provider will have many different blocks, making it extremely messy. We have a /32, then a /48 for each site, and a /64 for each vlan within the site which is designated by the vlan tag id. Much simpler and you know at a glance where on the physical network a given v6 address resides without having to look it up.
You misunderstand how privacy addressing works... /64, and once the address has been rotated there is no way to tell what address that device has now.
Periodically your system makes outbound connections from a different address, so a single user might use hundreds of different addresses within a
You'd only be able to track to the prefix, which is no different than ipv4 when you track to the nat gateway.
The RIAA and copyright cops HATE ipv6, they love NAT because it breaks p2p protocols. A centralised service is much easier to shut down, and requires much more bandwidth to operate.
The average user has no clue how to firewall anything anyway, and many ipv4 nat routers provide mechanisms for internal devices to arbitrarily open ports... Just look at the prevalence of security cameras and other iot devices on the internet with default passwords. /64 of ipv6 space will take years.
If anything, ipv6 will help in this regard because it will make it far more difficult to locate these devices. Scanning the entire ipv4 internet is easy and fast, scanning even a single
Consumer level routers do not allow inbound ipv6 connections by default, although many offer mechanisms to open connections on demand - this is no different to the ipv4 status quo.
ISPs will have no idea how many devices you have because of the privacy addressing, whereby your system continuously allocates new random ipv6 addresses within your /64 address space. They will however still be able to use techniques like monitoring for cookies and other unique identifiers, which they can already do with ipv4.
If you've never had a problem with ipv4, then your use of the internet must be pretty limited...
Getting new ipv4 addresses to host anything is now much more expensive.
NAT breaks many things, so now instead of being able to connect back to your machines at home you have to rent a server somewhere and open a tunnel from your home network to the hosted server.
p2p file transfers and p2p communication (eg gaming) are broken by nat, you have to involve an intermediate host - either a server you rent for yourself, or a third party who can snoop on your traffic.
And no, NAT is not a security feature - its a kludge to cope with a lack of addresses, a stateful firewall is what will prevent unwanted inbound connections and all consumer level ipv6 routers deny unsolicited inbound connections by default.
When your using a third party server like this, not only do you give up your privacy to the owner of that server, but you also rely on their goodwill to keep the server running. Despite the fact that quake was released in the 90s, today i can fire up a quake server on a non natted address, share the address with my friends and we can have a game. This doesn't work if you are behind nat, and games which require developer-supplied servers probably wont still be playable 20+ years later.
For work i have point to point vpn links between our central office and our clients networks to facilitate devices that we manage for them...
It has to be an outbound connection initiated from the clients to our network because many of our clients are behind nat gateways controlled by the ISP so we can't connect directly to them and the provider charges a lot more for a dedicated ipv4 address.
Also on the vpn links, many companies use overlapping internal address space (192.168.0.x etc), which becomes very messy when we're trying to address devices over the vpn as there will be many networks and devices using the same addresses. IPv6 solves this nicely as everything can have unique addresses.
NAT also causes other problems for ip based blacklists and ips systems - traditionally you could block abusive users by their ip address, if you do that now there might be thousands of customers from the same provider behind the same ip. If you block one address you block all that provider's customers and if you leave it open you invite further abuse. Conversely many innocent users find themselves on blacklists because other users of the same provider did something or became infected with some kind of malware.
What's needed is for large companies like google and facebook to offer benefits to ipv6 users, such as early access to new beta features etc, and then promote this... Currently very few users are demanding ipv6, so most isps can get away with not offering it. If large numbers of users start asking for ipv6 and switching to providers which already offer it, then providers will very quickly start implementing it.
Microsoft actually state that the xbox one will work better with ipv6, so that's at least a start and some xbox users ask for ipv6.