Well no, that's not really the point, at least in Denmark. A murder is a murder regardless of the victim, but the murder/attack on a police officer is an attack on the state (The police being the organisation through which the government exercises power, in some areas).
You already do get a lower level of feedback from the noise of the electic motor. It doesn't make much noise but it does change in pitch as you go faster. Plus you have the speedometer and the colour of the dashboard changes colour I think as you speed up.
This one is funny, because conservatives have used archive.is for some time to archive and mock left-leaning websites and some of them blocked archive.is in the past and still block archive.is today.
VOX for example returns a 0-sized page for archive.is. In the past VICE returned 404s to archive.is https://i.imgur.com/OnFdVpS.jpg
What I mean to say is that these services are useful but they are not faultless.
VICE didn't just block archive.is, they blocked the Internet Archive too by returning the exact same 404 page. They really didn't want any archived copies of their posts hanging around anywhere outside their control.
I personally think this is simply a result of how much harder the media is pushing that divide (for all of their various purposes). I actually spent some time last year researching this, because I thought I might have just become an old man thinking how great things used to be. I started reading old news stories fairly randomly, from the present time all the way back to the Vietnam era (and a few rabbit holes to earlier times). The first thing that surprised me was the amount of link rot that exists. I always knew intellectually that it was a problem, but wow. It's bad. The second thing that I found was that indeed, the media hammers on the "us-versus-them" political divide of American politics much, much harder nowadays than even ten years ago. I think Fox News was really the turning point. It opened the flood gates. I always remember thinking how "extreme" Fox News was, but I challenge anyone to look up a few of their older stories from the middle of the last decade. It's child's play compared to what pretty much every media outlet is doing today. You can hardly read a recent news story from just about anywhere without being told how it's supposed to fit into our political worldview, and how we should feel about it, and why it's good/bad/stupid/amazing/"terrifying". And so of course, because of this, people are just responding to the programming. Creating the world they're led to believe we they live in. I think it really is that straightforward.
Did you just look at print? Talk radio has been hammering this since the late eighties. Hell you can probably draw a line straight from the "Moral Majority" shit in the seventies, to where we find ourselves now. I suspect this has always been a big part of American culture, but it's being magnified now either by new tech or malicious actors or both.
Ah, I apologize, I didn't keep notes or save links or anything of the sort, and I keep kicking myself for it. I'm usually pretty good about taking notes just out of my regular habit of doing research, but it was so casual, and I didn't think it would end up taking as much of my time as it did. It's a pretty easy formula to replicate, though. I picked current events that I could remember -- intervention in Kosovo, Bill Clinton's sex scandal, Berlin Wall, first election of Putin, Enron scandal, those kinds of things -- and just started looking up stories, and asked my parents and older friends to help me with events I wasn't old enough to remember before the 80s. I made sure to hit a "good" cross-section of the media outlets of the day.
I'd love to see the Bush/Gore 2000 election play out on social media. I was only a kid but the news coverage seemed pretty mild compared to how I imagine it would be if that happened in 2016.
Everything is partisan political now. What books you read, what films and TV series you watch, where you live, the definition of "political" itself, and to some extent even what internet archiving service you use. (In reality, left-leaning folks have used archive.is to save and mock conservative sites for some time too, but even though this happens across the board it's still normal and expected to think of this as a partisan political activity because everything is now.)
I think having written short sighted things and then regretting them is a somewhat universal thing. I also don't have a problem with either side using previous writings, as long as they are reproduced accurately and faithfully.
In short, before you publish a blog post that is sexist/racist/homophobic/whatever, consider that even if you delete it, others may have a copy and will use it against you.
How you maintain cognitive dissonance in defending such personal blog sites masquerading as news outlets despite admitting that a word-for-word reproduction of their words constitutes mockery is beyond me.
well in this case it is a left leaning activist who taking this other left leaning activist down. it is not always the politics we expect but we can guarantee if its political it will be nasty.
the issue I have is, we should not be able to just block access to archived content because its embarrassing.
Okay, is this really true or not? Because I marked my FB acc for deletion a few days ago and reading this so much is making me think of cancelling and waiting until now, but it really doesn't make much sense
You have nothing to lose by waiting. And Facebook has been as shady as they possibly could be with GDPR (the Facial recognition opt-in dialog is a prime example of that. What a farce).
GDPR is already active. It's just the punishment section that is not yet active.
On May 25th, if a company has (still) data about you, they have to comply or (now) face the consequences.
That's a really pedantic interpretation :) It has been adopted and published, but enforcement starts May 25. Because nothing can actually happen until May 25, I think that is a more reasonable date to say that it is "active".
>UCSD Caida uses it for their network telescope (pretending to use it for amateur radio) and won't give it back.
Why do we have to convince them to give it back? It's not like IP addresses are tangible and we have to break into their offices to steal them. Major ISPs could stop all routes with them and those addresses could be recovered and reassigned to other AS's
I understand this is quite a big threshold to cross, but it feels necessary.
>we still have around nine million recovered IPv4 addresses in our available pool. Under current policy and growth rates, we expect these to last a further two years.
And by then they will have recovered even more. The end of IPv4 is a lie, and how bad IPv6 is and the lack of good transitioning systems doesn't help.
We do have more and more people in the world. Things like NATing can help get around it to some extent, but at the end of the day there aren't enough addresses to give every human alive today even one IP address. That doesn't strike me as a problem that can be solved by buybacks.
Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. The current setup is not quite painful enough for people to want to fix it. The good is the enemy of the great, as it were.
NAT was (and is) destructive and painful that some of us gave up writing network software in the late-90s/early-00s. I personally abandoned several network-focused projects in the early 2000s.
The current status quo only seems "not quite painful enough" if you accept that most people cannot use true network software, limited to client-server architecture where party lines[1] communicate with each other only with the permission of central privileged imprimatur[2].
"if you accept..." I mean, isn't that a very reasonable assumption? Do you really disagree with the notion that more than half of global population don't care at all about the ability to "use true network software", wouldn't use it if they could, and, as long as they're not restricted too much, knowingly avoid solutions with more freedom and actually prefer centralized solutions as long as they're even just a bit more convenient? Heck, if we don't listen at what people are claiming and look at their actions, then even in the techie crowd the majority aren't ready to sacrifice minor conveniences to choose decentralized models over a client-server run and entirely controlled by someone else.
Interrent would be very different (better) today if not for NAT.
NAT restricts what is possible to do over network for example we only use TCP and UDP protocols, because those protocols are supported by most devices. Similarly we have very minimal number of peer to peer applications. P2P currently is mostly popular with piracy, but it could be beneficial for other uses.
NAT + asymmetric speeds (which started because of DSL, but ISPs decided to keep things that way even though it is no longer necessary) are responsible that's why we haven't a lot of services that are centralized. IPv6 has chance to fix this and I am so glad NAT wasn't included in its design.
ipv6 solve the problem of one ip per device, with ipv6 you can have both local and public IP's on the same interface! Then your app's and services can choose whether they like to listen on local or public IP's.
Without NAT you can do so much more stuff, like peer-to-peer (p2p) networking. Yes, you can do p2p with ipv4 behind NAT but it's super complicated and brittle.
Also bypassing the NAT is complicated, you have to fiddle with the router settings, and often you have to call your ISP to give you a public IP. This makes it hard or impossible to sell "Internet of things" (IoT) devices to regular people as you can't just plug them in.
Networks today are very good with high bandwidth and low latency, which enables some interesting use cases, for example virtual reality (VR) where you just have a thin client plugged in to the network and then have all the compute power located in a data-center a few miles away, with sub ms latency.
Another usecase is apps with service like functionality, like decentralized Facebook, and chat messengers.
Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection? Keeping your own server up and running at home is unreliable and annoying. Having animals, kids, makes it even more difficult. If I would have to rely on it beeing up while I am abroad, I would rather pay for VPS.
Hiding insecurity is perfectly valid. It is making attack surface smaller. I do not get pings of death, constant scanning, login attempts all the time on my local machine which is always behind NAT. Every server that has public IP gets scanned or tried out with vulnerabilities. I can connect totally new PC to router with NAT and not be owned in matters of minutes by some botnet. My router might be exposed but it is something I know. All machines behind router are perfectly fine for remote vulnerabilities.
> Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection?
Depends what you need. My last power outage was over a year ago, and Internet issues will generally resolve themselves in a relatively short period of time. That's reliable enough for a lot of use cases.
> Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection? Keeping your own server up and running at home is unreliable and annoying.
That's all besides the point. When you want to share a file with someone while you are both working on it, say, there is no need for a "server". IP is perfectly fine for transfering a file from your machine to theirs. When you want to talk to someone over the net, there is no need for a "server". IP is perfectly fine for transmitting voice calls between your machine to theirs.
Your mistake is in your assumption that you even need a server in the first place. For some things, that might be useful. For other things, that is only needed as a workaround for NAT in the first place.
Also, reliably running a server at home isn't hat hard either, even today. With hardware offerings that are a better fit, it could be even easier. There isn't really any reason why hosting your own "server" at home needs to be any more difficult than hosting your own vacuum cleaner.
> Hiding insecurity is perfectly valid. It is making attack surface smaller.
No, it doesn't. It simply makes it harder for you to notice that you are not secure, that's all. This is not about whether firewalling insecure services off from public access makes the attack surface smaller. It does. But NAT doesn't, a firewall does. If you have a firewall, you don't need NAT. If you don't have a firewall, NAT won't protect you.
> I do not get pings of death, constant scanning, login attempts all the time on my local machine which is always behind NAT. Every server that has public IP gets scanned or tried out with vulnerabilities.
Which is just completely irrelevant. None of these things are a security risk. They are annoyances when trying to debug the network, that's all. And none of that is in any way fundamentally helped by even a firewall. You have a huge attack surface in your web browser that is completely unaffected by your firewall and by NAT as well, pretending that a service listening on a port is somehow a huge security problem, but executing untrusted code inside a massively complicated virtual machine is harmless is just completely focusing on the wrong problem. Also, all those pages that you load into your browser sort-of have access to your local network anyway, because your browser is inside your firewall and can connect to all those services that you pretend your NAT protects.
> I can connect totally new PC to router with NAT and not be owned in matters of minutes by some botnet.
You are constantly confusing firewalls and NAT. That is done by a stateful firewall, not by a NAT.
> My router might be exposed but it is something I know. All machines behind router are perfectly fine for remote vulnerabilities.
We are talking about IPv6 and possibilities to directly access machine where some vulnerable service might be exposed by misconfiguration. If you have remote code execution vulnerability service listening in that service it is really bad. Even pro people forget to close their database on servers sometimes, cannot think what weird stuff might be running on normal users machines.
I did not even touched running untrusted code by user because that is not in the scope of discussion. It is insecure with whatever the network configuration will be.
I do not know how you can connect to device behind NAT without setting up tunnel to it. But I might be wrong, point me to some resource please?
> We are talking about IPv6 and possibilities to directly access machine where some vulnerable service might be exposed by misconfiguration.
That is no different than with IPv4. If you have a stateful firewall, that isn't possible. If you don't, it is.
> Even pro people forget to close their database on servers sometimes, cannot think what weird stuff might be running on normal users machines.
Which is why you should have a stateful firewall. A NAT does not add anything to that.
> I did not even touched running untrusted code by user because that is not in the scope of discussion. It is insecure with whatever the network configuration will be.
It is very much in scope of the discussion, as every single end user does it. No matter how great their firewall is, you just send them a link to a website, and that website now gets to execute Javascript code on the inside of the firewall, with more or less direct access to all the insecure services supposedly protected by the firewall. Including even stuff only listening on localhost, which wouldn't be reachable directly even without a firewall. If you want to do a mass-scale attack, you serve that code through an advertising network.
So, you actually have to secure the services anyway, even a firewall is insufficient to protect vulnerable services on end-user networks.
> I do not know how you can connect to device behind NAT without setting up tunnel to it. But I might be wrong, point me to some resource please?
By sending a packet addressed directly to the internal address, which your ISP can do, anyone who compromises your ISP's edge router can do, and more often than not your neighbours can do when your ISP fails to properly isolate customers on layer 2.
What's wrong with IPv6? The only complaints I've seen are "the numbers are bigger", as if that's not the point, and that makes them harder to remember.
My "main issue" with it is that if people are used to being behind NAT, they now have to be a bit more careful about securing their computers (firewall etc.) because every computer now is publicly accessible. Most routers do not even seem to have an IPv6 firewall.
The 'residential gateway' for my attached fiber connection doesn't allow incoming syns for the ipv6 addresses it hands out and I couldn't even find a way to tell it to let me actually use the internet as intended, other than bypassing it (which works fine).
Most endpoints these days don't have much if anything listening by default though. The reality is that even trusted local networks are hostile networks, and vendors have responded to that.
Ultimately we do need to secure our endpoint devices. They need to be secure by default. NAT and firewalls let us get away with insecure broken OSes and services for a while, but not forever, and they create the "soft underbelly problem" where once someone manages to hop your firewall everything is vulnerable.
NAT does not provide access protection. NAT only hides the lack of access protection when it isn't there. A stateful firewall provides access protection, and that works with both IPv4 and IPv6.
Also some implementations (including Windows) [0] expose the MAC address of your device to the Internet, creating a huge privacy problem. IPv6 is a mess.
One of these days yall are going to see it my way... in which I think ipv6nat is important to use despite everything you hear about ipv6nat saying it should never be used, usually by people theorycrafting instead of being responsible for actual systems. (Cue the "but nat was never very secure" etc comments.)
That's approximately a /17 worth of IPv4 addreses, recovered over multiple years going through all the low hanging fruit (eg the original /8 networks).
9 million addresses for 2 years is a burn rate of ~375k/month. Another 2 million newly obtained addresses in the next 2 years will last 6 more months.
It's already more economical, it's just not surfaced very well economically. People hide the price of IPv4.
One of the IPv6 ISPs did a talk about this, they realised that rather than hiding this cost they could surface it and then magically instead of "Try to persuade technical people to choose IPv6" the situation is "Make technical people explain to their finance department why they're spending the extra money" and what do you know, "Learn IPv6" is way more popular than "Argue with accountants".
IP addresses accumulate reputations as well as background noise traffic bound for them. While "plenty" of these recovered addresses exist, there is something to be said for being able to get allocations of unused addresses.
> will unemployed people stop looking for a job if they receive free money?
That's not quite the question. The question is, will unemployed people look less for a job if they're guaranteed free money even once they get a job, compared to the status quo where they are guaranteed free money (for awhile) that stops once they get a job.
There's also a follow-up question, that is something like "Will people on permanent disability start getting jobs if you stop punishing them by permanently taking away disability payments if they get a job?"
In Finland, all unemployed are guaranteed “free money” even if they choose not to seek employment. The difference from UBI is that this final security net, so to speak, only guarantees a minimum level of income – any earned wages (or existing wealth) directly affect the welfare payments on this level.
edit: the whole system is more complicated than this, of course, but the point here is that this safety net is permanent – you can not lose it even if you are unemployed for a long time (recently, a tiny reduction of welfare payment was introduced for those who do not meet certain criteria for activity; however, you are in any case entitled to certain level of income, and government-paid rent, etc., in any case.)
There is a big difference between "getting free money forever" and "getting free money for some time" (1-2 years or so, at least in my country). Especially, if you have a family you definitely not want to risk running out of welfare.
There is a difference, and you offer a hypothesis on how it would affect work incentives. And it'd be silly to reject that hypothesis out of hand.
But a hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis, not a fact. There's plenty of existing research on how changing unemployment benefits change work incentives (answer: not too much), but it's also true that longer time horizons might change that answer. That's why experimental tests are needed.
In most western countries unemployed people get free money in the form of social welfare. In a lot of the west unemployment is without time limits, you can be unemployed for life.
I know a few people who live in some of the most expensive areas of the country and are permanently unemployed, they live fine (although not a lifestyle that I'd want) and spend their time pursuing creative endeavors. They do have to do things like grow their own vegetables and brew their own beer to save money. You get different benefits depending on age, disabilities, if you have children (and if they're yours or if they have disabilities), partners, etc. For the general unemployment benefit you have to be going to job seeker support and looking for work, but some people are just not employable (for instance if they have drug convictions).
It's worth noting that this social welfare system was put in place under a conservative government, when we had a more liberal government we had state support for artists as well with no restrictions.
It's hard to give exact numbers as a monthly income because unemployment benefits are broken up into cash and vouchers and credits. For instance in NZ if you're unemployed or poor the government will pay your rent, give you cash, subsidise a lot of your expenses, give you vouchers to use at the supermarket, etc. The state and city councils also own housing for the poor and unemployed.
In Australia NewStart (unemployment benefits) amounts to about $250/week, or about $13,000pa in an economy where the cost of living is close to $45k. There are other support mechanisms such as rent assistance, but NewStart also obligates the recipient to search for work with a minimum number of interviews per week (up to 10) and a requirement to accept the first job that is offered (thus a person with IT project management experience could end up full time retail). Refusing a job offer means termination of benefits.
In addition the system is administered by private industry who are rewarded based on number of interviews, not placements.
I would hold up Australia’s unemployment welfare system as a prime example of what to not do.
Oh, and we have been sending debt collectors after unemployed people who got jobs, claiming that they committed fraud when it was actually the calculation of what was paid incirrectly that was wrong. Look up “robodebt”
Not really possible.