Well yeah, that one's simple, but what about the unicorn farts mentioned by a previous poster? Just the torque converters for that alone would be enormous, not to mention the extra whangle drums and sliding paff gongbudgers.

Nowadays we do it with drones and remote cameras.

The hardware is dangerous typically running with very high security clearance, and you have absolutely NO idea what is going on inside those transistors.

I KNOW there are devil worshipers operating in the world so I am "completely unable to trust" ANYONE because they may be a devil worshiper.

Without specific information what you KNOW is FUD.

Before the very same proprietary firmware was burnt into silicon. The only difference "now" is less ignorance.

This is madness. They own the hardware. If you don't trust the vendor they can still screw you in hardware. Your fucked either way.

I don't recall people bitching about CPU microcode or any of a dozen subsystems in a typical computer which run on closed proprietary firmware.

I actually think this is something we should be encouraging more of. What is dangerous is systems downloading firmware from onboard field upgradable roms because attackers have leveraged these vectors to destroy gear and persist ownage even after compromised systems have been completely wiped.

Are there any home routers with IPv6 support that don't come default out of the box with functionally same security policy implemented as SPI?

Most of them run Linux and same connection tracking code that make IPv4 NAT work is available for IPv6.

Have you ever considered the reason is that the problem fundamentally isn't solvable?

No matter how clever you are there is no getting around the pidgin hole problem.

Any scheme you can come up with has already been implemented as a transition technology, overlay or CGN and they all suck worse than simply deploying IPv6.

NAT is less secure than SPI due to existence of packet mangling ALG codes and gnarly assumptions made by application gateways attempting to deconflict sessions where ambiguities exist.

No more difficult for the end user if SPI is deployed instead of NAT.

The problem is older routers have ASICs hard coded for IPv4. They can't 'route' IPv6 in hardware like they can with IPv4 so they use their CPU to forward IPv6 which is much slower.

I've seen the exact opposite, most openers are built using shitty Princeton 2262s, which sounds like what this guy hacked. Oh, and if you've been sold a fancy "rolling-code remote", open it up and look at the hardware, if it says 2262 on the chip (or one of the many derivatives) then you've been had (many so-called rolling-code remotes aren't, the vendors just claim they are).

In practice it's even worse than the article points out, the switches are tri-state not binary but most vendors of remotes forget that so you go from 3^n to 2^n, and then they only use 8 of the 12 pins you can toggle on because they're on one side of the chip and they forget there's more around the other side. So you go from 3^12 to 2^8 combinations, meaning you'll hit the right one after 128 tries on average. The receivers have no rate-limiting, so you can run them far faster than the vendor specifies and scan the code space in seconds. The novel thing in this case is the use of de Bruijn sequences, and the fact that he scans the entire code space in the same time a standard scanner takes for the (admittedly far too common) badly-designed ones.

Hey, forcing a mobile-phone interface onto an inherently desktop system worked so well for Microsoft in Windows 8 that I guess Google had to give it a go too,

More seriously, this is beyond braindamaged. Our product is mainframe middleware. Exactly zero percent of our users access our site from a phone or tablet. However, Google now wants us to optimise it for a platform that none of our users will ever use, just because, hey, Google says so. Cretins.

Across two totally different (Lenovo and Toshiba) laptops, and that's only ever triggered by Skype and nothing else? Sounds a bit unlikely...

What does someone upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10 get out of the deal? A different UX and minor performance improvements only noticeable on low memory systems? Is there a list of substantive reasons for users to care other than 7 10?

I go through Microsoft's website and google.. all I see is BS about a new browser, Cortana and Xbox. Is there a list of useful changes somewhere?

The LHC will not start a chain reaction in the universe converting it all to a lower energy state and letting all the planets in all the solar systems turn to goo.

It will not blow a hole in space-time and let all the matter get sucked thru the hole. It will not destroy gravity.

I am not an atomic playboy as one of my critics labeled me colliding these protons to satisfy my personal whim.

I'll say. Skype fairly consistently blue-screens my laptops after about an hour of voice chat with it, first the whole system freezes, then after about half a minute it bluescreens, and that's on two different laptops. That's pretty impressive amount of fail for a fscking Internet phone app.

Interesting how things that seem like a good idea on the surface turn out to be counterproductive once you consider all the implications of doing them.

Damage to structures from condensation in structures, damage to HVAC equipment due to high static pressures, reduced heating/cooling efficiency of structures due to unbalanced air flows.