I don't know about killing NAT router sales... I don't want to have to spend all day and night staying on top of the latest patches to my toaster's TCP/IP stack software to prevent a hacker from ruining my morning breakfest by crisping my bread remotely. I like the idea of there being a single, relatively simple, machine between my LAN and the rest of the world.
NAT is useful for allowing many computers to have net access without using a valid internet IP address for each one, but it's also nice for restircting remote access to only those machines that should have it.
To treat a particulary website as more reliable than another has a number of problems.
The first I can see is: what of opinion pieces on a reliabe site? Should Google also be able to differentiate between opinion pieces and non-opinion pieces? The logistics of such a system become complex quickly when one considers how much/little opinion may enter into a given piece and determining at what point a given article from a reliable site is more trustworthy than someone else's blog.
The second problem is that offering a site reliability modifier in effect works as free advertising for the site owner. Unless there is a purely objective means of measuring reliability of a site, such a measure falls back on "Well, they're the New York Times, they have to be more reliable," so good PR buys you a higher google rank. And that's exactly the kind of thing I would not want to see Google do.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about killing NAT router sales... I don't want to have to spend all day and night staying on top of the latest patches to my toaster's TCP/IP stack software to prevent a hacker from ruining my morning breakfest by crisping my bread remotely. I like the idea of there being a single, relatively simple, machine between my LAN and the rest of the world.
NAT is useful for allowing many computers to have net access without using a valid internet IP address for each one, but it's also nice for restircting remote access to only those machines that should have it.
To treat a particulary website as more reliable than another has a number of problems. The first I can see is: what of opinion pieces on a reliabe site? Should Google also be able to differentiate between opinion pieces and non-opinion pieces? The logistics of such a system become complex quickly when one considers how much/little opinion may enter into a given piece and determining at what point a given article from a reliable site is more trustworthy than someone else's blog. The second problem is that offering a site reliability modifier in effect works as free advertising for the site owner. Unless there is a purely objective means of measuring reliability of a site, such a measure falls back on "Well, they're the New York Times, they have to be more reliable," so good PR buys you a higher google rank. And that's exactly the kind of thing I would not want to see Google do.