A non-NAT scheme depends - almost entirely - on my firewall not sucking
So does a NAT scheme. If a firewall is allowing traffic from the public interface to the private one without an ACL or a statefull connection, there is a word for that: broken.
You seem to think that the firewall having to do more work somehow makes it more secure.
Ugh, tell me about it. I was helping a friend sell his books at a comic convention in Chicago. His booth was across a booth that had famous superheroes redone as zombies. My guess is that no less than 1/4 of artist's alley was linked to zombies in one way or another.
The unfortunate part is that his book, The Golden Kingdom: Z, makes people assume it shares something with this book about zombies, World War Z
The Z in "The Golden Kingdom" has *nothing* to do with zombies, but from what I saw, two unfortunate things were happening:
1. Zombie fans asked about the book and were disappointed when they discovered it wasn't a zombie book. 2. People that really don't care for zombies avoided the book & didn't even discover what it was really about.
Well done, I think you've explained it perfectly. I owned several WinMo phones before the iPhone, and I also couldn't get what the big deal was: "Music on my phone? Been doing that for years! Besides, that stupid thing can't multi-task like my phone".
As you say, though, no one else got it until Apple did it. That is precisely what Steve Jobs & others at Apple should get credit for. Not as inventors, but as translators of technology to the masses.
To say that they're a digital music player is backwards: the rest of the world would say digital music players are bad ipods
I owned a Diamond Rio & Creative Nomad, 2 years before the iPod was ever sold. I enjoyed them more than the first iPod, and I still would take the music management software that I had to use for them over any version of iTunes.
I say this as a iPhone owner. I don't hate Apple, but I hate the incorrect praise they get for inventing things they did not invent.
That seems like a dumb memory management tactic to me.
So, if every program did this, then the programs that start first would eat up more RAM than needed, while those that start later would see high RAM usage & not grab as much.
Why not just get the RAM needed & unload it when done?
So, it is easier for someone that wants to steal a laptop to go on the Internet, locate someone that bragged about a Macbook on Facebook, guess their alarm PIN (mine isn't my birth year) without guessing wrong, etc... --OR-- Go to a upper-middle class neighborhood, find a house without an alarm, wait for both cars to leave the garage, and see what we find.
Do you take the all of the pennies out of the jar at the gas station, too?
If you're talking about paying for member access, sure, you can do that on some sites.
If you're talking about blocking ads (not ISP-injected ads, but website ads), you're being a bit of a dick online.
I'm not going to go into a moral debate about "stealing" web content, but you must understand that the people running the website need to cover their costs & put food on the table. Website ads are kinda like a money jar on the counter that says "Please self pay". Sure, you can refuse the ads, but you're being a bit of a jerk if you consistently use the website without allowing their ads to be displayed.
I'll completely concede your points here. I do agree that there ARE some valid cases for SOME people to have to go private.
Some of those, like people living in oppressive governments, need to understand that Facebook & Google+ are not the venues to use, though. Even if a social network came out that appeared to offer great privacy controls, the risks are too great that a government could compel them to release info, they are hacked, or make a security mistake that reveals life-threatening info.
How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for and supplied?
Me too. So, let's agree that they can't use credit history, Facebook postings, or anything outside of what you said in the job selection process.
We can't do that? Well, then let's combat their data with some of our own.
Again, the point is that they are already using bad data that isn't related to social networking to make decisions. I'd welcome them using data I control rather than (or in addition to) data that a bunch of banks control.
On points 1 & 2, you assume the decision is between ads and no ads. That's incorrect.
My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.
Also, I never said I buy based of what an ad says. I might not have realized, though, that a product that fits my needs exists without the ad. After knowing it does exist, I'll begin my normal process of looking into unbiased sources.
Your 3rd point really doesn't bother me, and that's part of what I'm getting at. How does it harm me for them to have that information?
My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.
Also, using things like credit history is already being done. People are unable to get jobs or insurance because of a score that is only based on how much money they borrow & how much they pay off (not how much they have, btw).
Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't a social networking issue.
In fact, my point is that by actually having an open society, we can see a clearer picture. As you pointed out, corporations and/or the government is already going to use whatever scraps of data they can find to make a decision. Since this is an incomplete picture, they are sometimes going to make incorrect decisions.
which is a dangerous situation in a much more incomplete-data-driven recruitment culture.
You're helping my point, here. Since the use of data like this is going to happen no matter what, I don't mind giving a more complete picture.
How do you want people to make decisions regarding your health/employment? Based on a very limited amount of data others create about you that can easily paint a false picture, or by overwhelming amounts of data that YOU have created?
It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things.
I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.
I don't care to see Tampax or MLB ads. I'm not going to buy anything they are selling, so every one of those ads is annoying to me. On the other hand, an ad for Xbox or Cisco might actually help me learn more about something I was considering buying anyhow.
I agree. I often ask exactly what terrible, bad dangerous thing might happen if someone knows I disliked the latest BSG episode & just went out last night for beer & pizza with Michelle.
Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.
Theft of items in my house when I'm gone? I, like most people, work a fairly normal schedule. It is a pretty safe bet that no one is home at 2pm.
Identity theft? I've seen very few cases of this through social networks, but I've seen many cases of this when credit cards or other items are stolen from retailers or banks. Get identity theft insurance & relax.
Misuse by Big Brother to falsely imprison me? Actually, the more I put out there about my life on multiple social networks, the harder it would be to frame me. Someone who doesn't have as much self-provided evidence will find it is easier to be framed with a sprinkling of false info.
No, it isn't so simple. There are many examples of expensive devices requiring many more manual steps because it gives the perception of value. "Mine requires more work because it is such a precision device" seems to be a very common thing. Sometimes, this is a good thing, because it allows for better control by the end user *IF* they know what they're doing. SLR vs point & shoot, for example. Other times, it is simply a status thing. For example, I have a solar powered watch that is synced to the atomic clock in Colorado every morning. My watch will always be within 0.5 seconds of actual time. However, a Rolex that costs thousands more doesn't include the solar charging or atomic clock sync will never be as accurate as my watch, and requires more effort. Still, a Rolex has the perception of higher value.
-Note, I live in the USA, I get that you might not. Ignore the "we" in those cases.
Off-shoring becomes a bit of a problem if you decide you want to fight a war with one of the countries you offshore to.
For example, if we would start a war with India, one of the first things that would happen is the loss of all communication with that country. How many businesses would fail since they wouldn't be able to replace that infrastructure quickly.
How about if we go to war with China? Can we produce all of the parts we currently use in our weapons systems here, quickly?
Yes, in both examples, the USA would be able to eventually produce everything it might need, but it would take years to regain the infrastructure that currently isn't located here.
Where things get really complex is when you consider the off-shoring of natural resources, such are rare metals or oil. If the USA pissed everyone off, it wouldn't have enough resources to maintain current standards of living & fight a war, even with all of the imaginary money it can print.
All of the above could be seen as a positive, though. Maybe if the idea of killing others isn't enough to stop war, the cold facts of logistical interdependence might.
Then why doesn't google put there data centers in Arizona
Two reasons:
1. Data centers are distributed for many reasons, but latency is one of the big ones. The speed of light is a bitch, so you need to be close to your endpoints.
2. It's a big room of things using electricity, generating heat, even at night. You want to build that in the middle of a desert?
It is meant to annoy you, and it worked. I understand being irritated by bad spelling & grammar, but I don't get why people take the discussion off-topic so they can bitch about the form of the comment instead of the substance. I'm equally annoyed by people that can't take the time to communicate properly. However, I've noticed that most of the grammar complaints are of the "I have no idea what you mean by 'teh', don't you mean 'the'?" variety. In other words, if you can't understand someone's post because it is so poorly written, skip it or mod it down. If you can understand it, respond to the substance instead of pointing out that the person made a mistake while typing on their smartphone.
Slashdot Mirror
A non-NAT scheme depends - almost entirely - on my firewall not sucking
So does a NAT scheme. If a firewall is allowing traffic from the public interface to the private one without an ACL or a statefull connection, there is a word for that: broken.
You seem to think that the firewall having to do more work somehow makes it more secure.
Ugh, tell me about it. I was helping a friend sell his books at a comic convention in Chicago. His booth was across a booth that had famous superheroes redone as zombies. My guess is that no less than 1/4 of artist's alley was linked to zombies in one way or another.
The unfortunate part is that his book, The Golden Kingdom: Z, makes people assume it shares something with this book about zombies, World War Z
The Z in "The Golden Kingdom" has *nothing* to do with zombies, but from what I saw, two unfortunate things were happening:
1. Zombie fans asked about the book and were disappointed when they discovered it wasn't a zombie book.
2. People that really don't care for zombies avoided the book & didn't even discover what it was really about.
Why is this illegal? Do I have to buy Microsoft in order to have a computer?
Counter point: Why isn't it illegal to bundle English into the OS?
DONE TALKING..
I'm going to hold you to that...
Well done, I think you've explained it perfectly. I owned several WinMo phones before the iPhone, and I also couldn't get what the big deal was: "Music on my phone? Been doing that for years! Besides, that stupid thing can't multi-task like my phone".
As you say, though, no one else got it until Apple did it. That is precisely what Steve Jobs & others at Apple should get credit for. Not as inventors, but as translators of technology to the masses.
To say that they're a digital music player is backwards: the rest of the world would say digital music players are bad ipods
I owned a Diamond Rio & Creative Nomad, 2 years before the iPod was ever sold. I enjoyed them more than the first iPod, and I still would take the music management software that I had to use for them over any version of iTunes.
I say this as a iPhone owner. I don't hate Apple, but I hate the incorrect praise they get for inventing things they did not invent.
That seems like a dumb memory management tactic to me.
So, if every program did this, then the programs that start first would eat up more RAM than needed, while those that start later would see high RAM usage & not grab as much.
Why not just get the RAM needed & unload it when done?
So, it is easier for someone that wants to steal a laptop to go on the Internet, locate someone that bragged about a Macbook on Facebook, guess their alarm PIN (mine isn't my birth year) without guessing wrong, etc...
--OR--
Go to a upper-middle class neighborhood, find a house without an alarm, wait for both cars to leave the garage, and see what we find.
Do you take the all of the pennies out of the jar at the gas station, too?
If you're talking about paying for member access, sure, you can do that on some sites.
If you're talking about blocking ads (not ISP-injected ads, but website ads), you're being a bit of a dick online.
I'm not going to go into a moral debate about "stealing" web content, but you must understand that the people running the website need to cover their costs & put food on the table. Website ads are kinda like a money jar on the counter that says "Please self pay". Sure, you can refuse the ads, but you're being a bit of a jerk if you consistently use the website without allowing their ads to be displayed.
I'll completely concede your points here. I do agree that there ARE some valid cases for SOME people to have to go private.
Some of those, like people living in oppressive governments, need to understand that Facebook & Google+ are not the venues to use, though. Even if a social network came out that appeared to offer great privacy controls, the risks are too great that a government could compel them to release info, they are hacked, or make a security mistake that reveals life-threatening info.
OK, so I'm only worried about stalkers when they're after my pseudonym?
How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for and supplied?
Me too. So, let's agree that they can't use credit history, Facebook postings, or anything outside of what you said in the job selection process.
We can't do that? Well, then let's combat their data with some of our own.
Again, the point is that they are already using bad data that isn't related to social networking to make decisions. I'd welcome them using data I control rather than (or in addition to) data that a bunch of banks control.
Why would you disable SSID advertising?
On points 1 & 2, you assume the decision is between ads and no ads. That's incorrect.
My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.
Also, I never said I buy based of what an ad says. I might not have realized, though, that a product that fits my needs exists without the ad. After knowing it does exist, I'll begin my normal process of looking into unbiased sources.
Your 3rd point really doesn't bother me, and that's part of what I'm getting at. How does it harm me for them to have that information?
So, I assume you think everyone that owns land is inviting stalkers since their name & address is public record?
You don't understand status symbols do you?
No, I just don't want anything to do with anyone who is so enamored with them.
Wow, the "Trust me, guy I don't know on the Internet. Some really bad thing happened to me that I'm not going to explain here" stance.
It sounds to me like you didn't have ENOUGH info out there.
If you actually want to help the unwashed like me, tell me how this actually happened.
My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.
Also, using things like credit history is already being done. People are unable to get jobs or insurance because of a score that is only based on how much money they borrow & how much they pay off (not how much they have, btw).
Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't a social networking issue.
In fact, my point is that by actually having an open society, we can see a clearer picture. As you pointed out, corporations and/or the government is already going to use whatever scraps of data they can find to make a decision. Since this is an incomplete picture, they are sometimes going to make incorrect decisions.
which is a dangerous situation in a much more incomplete-data-driven recruitment culture.
You're helping my point, here. Since the use of data like this is going to happen no matter what, I don't mind giving a more complete picture.
How do you want people to make decisions regarding your health/employment? Based on a very limited amount of data others create about you that can easily paint a false picture, or by overwhelming amounts of data that YOU have created?
It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things.
I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.
I don't care to see Tampax or MLB ads. I'm not going to buy anything they are selling, so every one of those ads is annoying to me.
On the other hand, an ad for Xbox or Cisco might actually help me learn more about something I was considering buying anyhow.
What is the downside, exactly?
Personally I don't care that much.
I agree. I often ask exactly what terrible, bad dangerous thing might happen if someone knows I disliked the latest BSG episode & just went out last night for beer & pizza with Michelle.
Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.
Theft of items in my house when I'm gone? I, like most people, work a fairly normal schedule. It is a pretty safe bet that no one is home at 2pm.
Identity theft? I've seen very few cases of this through social networks, but I've seen many cases of this when credit cards or other items are stolen from retailers or banks. Get identity theft insurance & relax.
Misuse by Big Brother to falsely imprison me? Actually, the more I put out there about my life on multiple social networks, the harder it would be to frame me. Someone who doesn't have as much self-provided evidence will find it is easier to be framed with a sprinkling of false info.
So, really, what bad thing will happen?
I can choose other social networks that might offer more privacy, and it is as easy as changing my URL.
With phone companies, I can either use the telco in my area, or not at all. Not the same thing.
It's simple economics;
No, it isn't so simple. There are many examples of expensive devices requiring many more manual steps because it gives the perception of value. "Mine requires more work because it is such a precision device" seems to be a very common thing.
Sometimes, this is a good thing, because it allows for better control by the end user *IF* they know what they're doing. SLR vs point & shoot, for example.
Other times, it is simply a status thing. For example, I have a solar powered watch that is synced to the atomic clock in Colorado every morning. My watch will always be within 0.5 seconds of actual time. However, a Rolex that costs thousands more doesn't include the solar charging or atomic clock sync will never be as accurate as my watch, and requires more effort. Still, a Rolex has the perception of higher value.
-Note, I live in the USA, I get that you might not. Ignore the "we" in those cases.
Off-shoring becomes a bit of a problem if you decide you want to fight a war with one of the countries you offshore to.
For example, if we would start a war with India, one of the first things that would happen is the loss of all communication with that country. How many businesses would fail since they wouldn't be able to replace that infrastructure quickly.
How about if we go to war with China? Can we produce all of the parts we currently use in our weapons systems here, quickly?
Yes, in both examples, the USA would be able to eventually produce everything it might need, but it would take years to regain the infrastructure that currently isn't located here.
Where things get really complex is when you consider the off-shoring of natural resources, such are rare metals or oil. If the USA pissed everyone off, it wouldn't have enough resources to maintain current standards of living & fight a war, even with all of the imaginary money it can print.
All of the above could be seen as a positive, though. Maybe if the idea of killing others isn't enough to stop war, the cold facts of logistical interdependence might.
Then why doesn't google put there data centers in Arizona
Two reasons:
1. Data centers are distributed for many reasons, but latency is one of the big ones. The speed of light is a bitch, so you need to be close to your endpoints.
2. It's a big room of things using electricity, generating heat, even at night. You want to build that in the middle of a desert?
It is meant to annoy you, and it worked. I understand being irritated by bad spelling & grammar, but I don't get why people take the discussion off-topic so they can bitch about the form of the comment instead of the substance.
I'm equally annoyed by people that can't take the time to communicate properly. However, I've noticed that most of the grammar complaints are of the "I have no idea what you mean by 'teh', don't you mean 'the'?" variety.
In other words, if you can't understand someone's post because it is so poorly written, skip it or mod it down. If you can understand it, respond to the substance instead of pointing out that the person made a mistake while typing on their smartphone.