Pretty much every PC, server or even smart phone OS ships with dual stack. Enable IPv6 on your home gateway and poof, IPv6 in your PC lights up. AT the same time, your PC can keep using IPv4 for non IPv6 web sites, or for that old Ethernet enabled printer in the basement. It works pretty much as expected. Not having unique IPv4 addresses does not change anything to the question -- IPv4 goes through NAT, IPv6 goes direct.
They would go under the name of "internet governance" and argue against "US domination", but he dream of dictatures is clear. In addition to control what can be written within the borders of their countries, they would very much like to extend censorship world-wide.
And if it can creates a few more cosy positions for international bureaucrats, the UN will love it!
There are so many ways this suggestion is wrong, it is not even funny.
TFA says WPA2 negotiates unique encryption keys with every computer that connects to it. This means you and I cannot spy on one another's traffic even when sharing access on the same access point. That's true, but anyone who can listen to the exchange and know the shared key will be able to learn the key. Plus, there is a very neat man in the middle attack.
Suppose that I am an evil sheep herder near a Starbuck cafe. Nothing prevents me from broadcasting a Wi-Fi beacon that announces that I am running a Starbuck access point. Here comes the sheep, who is really happyto see that the connection is secure. Hey, he used WPA2 and the "free" password, his packets are encrypted. Except they are all coming to my laptop. Oops!
Encrypted files have maximum entropy, just like absolutely random files. Basically, you can't tell which one is which. However, absolute random noise on a disk isn't all that usual, so any encrypted file (or pure random file) will stand like a sore thumb: it will be highly visible. But, again, you can't tell the difference.
Absolutely correct. Any "investigator" who finds a pure random file will immediately suppose that it contains encrypted data. I mean, what else? Compressed files are not random, and there is no real good reason to store gobs of random data on a disk. OK, maybe you can come with a good reason, such as doing research on random numbers, but that will be highly suspicious.
On the other hand, it is possible to systematically add entropy to a file. One very simple way may be to consider the random bits as codes in a variable length alphabet, much like a Huffman code. You can then "decompress" the random file using the variable length code. Voila, a larger file with the desired entropy/redundancy. It will look like binary data, not encrypted data.
Instead, we get this implausible thumb drive scenario. And guess what, instead dof applying $0.02 of common sense, we will see a proposal to spend $2B on intelligence system upgrades and military contracts. Of course, senator, we have earmarked 20% of that for your state...
-- Loaurnkoz
So we have a few photographs and the conclusion that the ice loss is devastating--despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is. But still, the editors immediately jump to the ice loss is devastating....
Glaciers do not change much with the seasons. Ever heard of things moving "at glacier pace"? Normal movements are in inches. What we see on the photos are differences in miles. No way you can explain that by spring versus fall! This glacier did melt.
If you read the fine article, you will see that they acknowledge wake on lan and other similar work. They are addressing a practical problem in large networks. Classic implementations of Wake-on-Lan wake the computer when another computer sends it a packet. This looks fine in theory, "my computer wakes up when it has something to do," but it does not work well in practice, in a large network.
In any network of a certain size, there is a lot of noise, scans, keep alive traffic. That traffic causes packets to be received frequently, maybe a couple times per minutes. When a computer awakes, it takes some time to put it back to sleep, maybe a minute. Given enough background traffic, the computer never goes to sleep.
The solution is some form of filter, to only wake up the computer if the incoming data packet is "important." For that, you need a proxy. And the proxy needs a lot of tuning. If it does not wake up on "important" traffic, the users are pissed. If it wakes up too often for trivial pings, the energy bill increases. What they claim here is that after a year of trial, they have validated a particular tuning that works well. Seems interesting indeed.
If the condition does have benefits, then is treatment the right approach? The typical goal of treatment is to "reduce you to normal," presumably so you don't bother other people. But from the society point of view, that's very counterproductive. Society at large will benefit from more geniuses.It would probably benefit even more if we learned to accomodate them!
Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari