I'm not religious, but I think "support" is a bit of a strong word. The Catholic Church never outright supported it, but turned a blind eye to it. Now whether or not that is worse is up for debate...

I can't agree. The network "3" has far less coverage, and many people complain about their customer service too, prices aside.

I think we're going to have to accept that a number of entities are going to have all kinds of information about us. One potential solution is to create meaningful regulations that balance individual interests/rights against those of corporate entities (corporate in the broadest sense, inc. state entities). Perhaps something along the lines of the confidentiality that exists between an individual and various professionals/clergymen.

"Eight armed narcs raided the Dagy home on March 19 and found absolutely nothing. No evidence of pot anywhere, not even stashed in the children's toys. Seems that the coppers mistook the family's constant use of the dishwasher, washer/dryer, three computers, four ceiling fans, and other electronic devices as evidence of a felony drug operation. Oops. The Dagys--Mom's a homemaker and Dad's a general manager of 21 Shell stations--would like an apology from the Carlsbad Police Department. Sadly, we'd recommend that the Dagys not hold their collective breath."

I hate drug cops and homeland security. They keep performing these heinous searches and "eating out the substance" of our citizens

Add up those few bucks a month for a year. Also maybe take into account the benefit to society (and thus to you) from improved grid efficiency and fewer blackouts

Now take the value of stuff you'd lose in a robbery. Multiply that by the probability that someone will steal your electricity usage data and use it to rob your house in the same year.

I'd be pretty surprised if the expected cost of this extremely unlikely hypothetical robbery makes smart meters not worthwhile.

Pay "someone" to autopackage the app.

Just get a Crown Victoria painted in your local police colors, or rent a boom truck and install your own web cam on a convenient utility pole.

Or leave a note on the door for the milkman.

Or maybe the mail piling up is a sign.

Why is it that guys like you claim the whole counter-terrorism thing is a way for the goverment to scare people, when you scare yourself far better? Watch out, I can track your /. account and tell when you are on holiday.

"sudo bash
works for Ubuntu without ever activating root login. It's what I use when I go in to edit .conf files."

Which in turn shows why sudo is not a security tool.

Did they figure out a way to access the GPU on the PS3 through Linux? As far as I can tell, the GPU is not accessible to linux and some of the RAM is unaccessible as well. Linux runs more like it would on virtual machine than it would running as a native OS. Most of my info comes from forums related to PS3 modding for home theater PCs and Im no expert. Anyone care to elaborate? If the GPU is really locked out, then are these guys just using a pretty average PowerPC computer with a few extra processors? P.S.this was posted earlier as a coward..sorry. now im legit!

Mod parent up. I don't hate Google or think they are necessarily evil, but there is a lot of potential for evil with this patent. Some of you guys need to realise that, and perhaps revise this thoughtless idolization.

You have higher cognitive ability, you realize how the world runs, you get depressed. Not the other way 'round.

or try http://springrts.com/

Open source RTS engine which formed around the idea of being a '3d TA' . There's a bunch of variations of TA for it and some nice other games.

A lot of old TA and SupCom players come to spring.

less polish more game.

I've found that the combination of a PC and a Wii serves my gaming needs excellently. The Wii has an excellent set of casual games (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, etc) that I can pick up and play with my gf whenever we have a few minutes to kill. The PC is great for serious gaming. A keyboard and mouse are, IMO, the best input controllers ever and the graphics on a mid-range gaming PC beat those on a 360 or PS3. I also like the fact that my games are all $50 (and not $60) new at retail.

Of course, everyone is different and I do miss out on a few 360 and PS3 exclusives, but nothing has come out for either system that has been that compelling for me.

I think when people say the Wii has "no good games", they mean it doesn't have good games like GTA, CoD, WoW, and other TLAs. But it has a ton of quick and fun, easy to learn, easy to play games that are great to play with friends, coworkers, kids, gf's, non-gamers etc.

Firewalls are capable of providing all of the positive benefits of NAT (transient traffic flow approval instead of mapping for example, blocking traffic not originated from the LAN, etc) save obfuscating the source address. Obfuscating the source address isn't particularly relevant from an attack perspective given that the entire LAN is still protected by the same Firewall process, NAT or not.

For example: you could NAT your LAN in 192.168.10.x space behind IP 1.2.3.4 .. you connect to shady.com port 80 sport 192.168.10.101:2000, NAT/firewall allocates 1.2.3.4:3000 for you. Shady sees all the traffic coming from 1.2.3.4:3000, but has no way (short of client-side malware) to know that maps to 192.168.10.101; nor can Shady care since all access to 192.168.10.101 is mediated by 1.2.3.4. Shady.com might try to port scan 1.2.3.4, and see any port forwards your entire LAN uses in one swoop, try to exploit them if possible. Moral: make sure you know what you are doing when you port forward.

Or, if you use IPv6 for your LAN, let's say you are allocated 1:2:3::/112. No need to NAT it, so you just firewall behind your gateway, let's say 1:2:3::4. You connect to shady.com port 80, sport [1:2:3::101]:2000. Firewall doesn't have to allocate a damned thing for you, but instead records the flow for [1:2:3::101]:2000 shady.com:80 as established from within the LAN and thus authorized. Shady sees all the traffic coming from [1:2:3::101]:2000, but it's not relevant since all access to 1:2:3::101 is still mediated by the firewall at gateway 1:2:3::4. Shady.com can port scan 1:2:3::101 if it likes, but won't see any open ports if you only allow LAN established traffic, or else sees your whitelisted ports for that IP only (instead of your entire LAN). Just like the IPv4/NAT scenario, keep your open ports secure.

As you can see, source IP obfuscation provides no meaningful advantage to the end user in this scenario. If anything, IPv6 users who feel like they want to use NAT could have the firewall choose random source addresses as well as random source ports out of their /112, and hide their 3 LAN devices within a pool of 65 thousand addresses. Would that not confuse a would-be attacker?

Still, the major drawback to be avoided with NAT is in breaking the globally unique address space and complicating inbound connection access, which will become a growing part of popular network policy over the next few decades. One thing Bit Torrent teaches us is that "the server" will less and less frequently have resources comparable to the "client swarm", so crowdsourcing the heavy lifting (from distribution to content creation to editing to caching) becomes vital to any scaling strategy worth it's salt. The hub/spoke communication model is slowly eroding in the presence of more sophisticated, decentralized many-to-many connection models.

NAT reduces a peer to a "consumer" which can only fetch data, but never re-offer it without convoluted port forwarding messes. Entire LAN's are limited to one named service per outbound IP, unless one wishes to screw with what port they offer services on, further complicating the job for other firewalls and participants of the content network.

You'll know what I mean if you've ever tried to configure mobile SIP access. Half the time you are behind a NAT, and you'll never know in advance if it's full cone, symmetric, or just somehow pathological. Sometimes you are nested within multiple NATs which each behave differently!

Some legacy UDP protocols I've worked with need to make connections to thousands of remote IP addresses at multiple, highly transient port mappings which bring NAT mapping tables to their knees. In a firewall-only environment, it's easy to whitelist access to swaths of ports for clients and then the gateway need not maintain tables for related traffic, but can continue to protect unrelated ports unlike with SOHO DMZ.

To sum up, NAT is not only a bandaid, but it's already pulling at our short-hairs.