If you haven't yet checked it out, Dave's YouTube channel is quite interesting stuff if you are an electronics geek or want to learn more about the topic.
That's not a security benefit of NAT, that's a quirky side effect that would be better replaced with a proper stateful firewall.
Quirky kludge, maybe, but IPv4 NAT does the job just fine, and is much simpler solution than an IPv6 firewall. I'm looking at your word "proper": most nerds just seem to get excited about an IPv6 firewall being the academically correct solution.
With IPv4 NAT, you basically just define a private IP address range and flip on NAT. Then you can already crack open a can of cola, kick back and relax.
Practicality is also important. Not only technical correctness.
Actually, that's probably what we will wind up going with. The overengineered and hard-to-use IPv6 hasn't caught much popularity. We have given it a lot of time and still the Internet has not switched over. The world will probably have fully HTTPS web sooner.
Agreed. Flash is such a security risk on its own that it would be insane to allow it run by default. It should always be click-to-played or whitelisted for trusted sites.
You don't even need EU to verify the lack of backdoors. Microsoft itself strives to create a product without backdoors. If one would be found, it would greatly hurt their business.
Has there ever been a backdoor in Windows or other Microsoft products? No.
I'm just tired of the paranoid attitude that all commercial software provides automatically want to screw you. No. They want to create a product that you want to buy. I'm sure you don't want to buy a product that has backdoors.
The main reason for going with closed source is not hiding malicious stuff, but that it allows making money with software. Open source works only if you have something else to sell along it.
And I have better things to think about than being overly worried about DRM. Even I prefer GOG over Steam always when possible, but it's quite a jump to call a system with DRM software to be "infected".
I also had a surprisingly good experience with a HP 3070A multifunction printer under Ubuntu. All I had to do was to enter the IP address of the printer. No other installations or configurations were needed. Wireless printing and scanning both worked without problems.
However, as a small deficiency, wireless scanning could be started only from the computer but not from the printer. The printer menu shows a list of computer hostnames, but Linux machines do not show up there. There might be a way to get it working though. The Linux machine should somehow advertise itself to the printer?
I meant that if he has "been wanting to play Minecraft so long" then why was he such a cheapskate to rigorously avoid the activation price. I'm all for saving money, but it seems to me that the product would actually have brought him good value.
It can have round objects, but the solid world is constructed from blocks. The interesting thing is that the blocks can be of varying size. Check out the screenshots in the product page.
Slashdot Mirror
They have better ways of making money already.
Some suckers still believe that Half-Life 3 will eventually be released?
Breaking important news! New CPU's are faster and more efficient than old CPU's! News at... wait... this is news!?
It's interesting to take a look how technology has advanced.
If you haven't yet checked it out, Dave's YouTube channel is quite interesting stuff if you are an electronics geek or want to learn more about the topic.
You're so fucking dense and incredibly close minded, and by all means, a complete idiot.
What the heck. :D
A bit angry, no?
Selling support for a software product is different from directly selling that particular software product.
That's not a security benefit of NAT, that's a quirky side effect that would be better replaced with a proper stateful firewall.
Quirky kludge, maybe, but IPv4 NAT does the job just fine, and is much simpler solution than an IPv6 firewall. I'm looking at your word "proper": most nerds just seem to get excited about an IPv6 firewall being the academically correct solution.
With IPv4 NAT, you basically just define a private IP address range and flip on NAT. Then you can already crack open a can of cola, kick back and relax.
Practicality is also important. Not only technical correctness.
It's like someone noting during knife design that "Knife seems useful, but we have found scissors to do the job as well."
Actually, that's probably what we will wind up going with. The overengineered and hard-to-use IPv6 hasn't caught much popularity. We have given it a lot of time and still the Internet has not switched over. The world will probably have fully HTTPS web sooner.
Older routers can't handle routing IPv6 in hardware so it puts a higher CPU load on the router. Nobody wants to spend the money to replace them.
Actually IPv4 is more CPU intensive due to where the checksum was implemented.
He was talking about routers where IPv4 is hardware-accelerated.
Routing and firewalling are the appropriate methods of hiding ones internal network structure, not NAT.
If you use NAT for this then you are doing it wrong.
That's like saying "A knife is the appropriate method of chopping parsley. If you use scissors for this then you are doing it wrong."
Shut up. NAT works as a nice mini-firewall.
The other one is intentional.
I can't think of any scenario where intentionally introducing backdoors would make customers more interested in buying a product.
Agreed. Flash is such a security risk on its own that it would be insane to allow it run by default. It should always be click-to-played or whitelisted for trusted sites.
Yes, but that's a bit different discussion than backdoors.
No, they don't think otherwise. The main income for those Linux companies comes from support and deployment services.
You don't even need EU to verify the lack of backdoors. Microsoft itself strives to create a product without backdoors. If one would be found, it would greatly hurt their business.
Has there ever been a backdoor in Windows or other Microsoft products? No.
I'm just tired of the paranoid attitude that all commercial software provides automatically want to screw you. No. They want to create a product that you want to buy. I'm sure you don't want to buy a product that has backdoors.
The main reason for going with closed source is not hiding malicious stuff, but that it allows making money with software. Open source works only if you have something else to sell along it.
And I have better things to think about than being overly worried about DRM. Even I prefer GOG over Steam always when possible, but it's quite a jump to call a system with DRM software to be "infected".
I also had a surprisingly good experience with a HP 3070A multifunction printer under Ubuntu. All I had to do was to enter the IP address of the printer. No other installations or configurations were needed. Wireless printing and scanning both worked without problems.
However, as a small deficiency, wireless scanning could be started only from the computer but not from the printer. The printer menu shows a list of computer hostnames, but Linux machines do not show up there. There might be a way to get it working though. The Linux machine should somehow advertise itself to the printer?
I understand. What would be a good Minecraft price for you?
You are probably quite stupid as well.
Okay, if that is really the case, I somewhat understand the problem, although I still don't think it's a big problem.
I meant that if he has "been wanting to play Minecraft so long" then why was he such a cheapskate to rigorously avoid the activation price. I'm all for saving money, but it seems to me that the product would actually have brought him good value.
It can have round objects, but the solid world is constructed from blocks. The interesting thing is that the blocks can be of varying size. Check out the screenshots in the product page.