> The laptop niche seems okay,

Except it is not an niche. Personally I haven't used a desktop/workstation computer for like 5 years. And also it have been like 5 years (or more) since notebook shipments exceeded desktop/workstations. Of course in sane IT deployments loss of client computer should not be a problem but still there could be sensitive data there. Even system level stuff like password hashes and so on. Maybe it is rare but security breaches usually involve the weakest link - and be it that if stoling a notebook is easier than breaking in your network then attackers would go and steal that laptop.

> except laptops get hacked just like desktops way more often than they get stolen and offlined

True. Probably spear-phishing or something like that would be easier than physically stealing a notebook. But stealing is still possible so you should protect also that vector of attack.

It's funny that IRRC the guy behind SilkRoad was captured using his laptop. The FBI tracked him and waited for opportunity to seize his notebook without possibility for him to shut it down (as it was encrypted). The lesson here is maybe to have some low-range personal device like bluetooth LE smartband that makes the computer to shut down where you are not close to it (like very close). And also don't tell anybody about it. ;)

Oh and for the Silkroad guy it would be wiser to operate from a country in which FBI has no jurisdiction... ;)

I don't know why are you hostile? :) If you could describe a situation in which allowing divide by zero would be deadly. I don't disagree with you - I AGREE - YOU DONT DIVIDE BY ZERO - BASIC MATH. But also I wonder how one can explain this to another by example on how it could be deadly (a airplane example, nuclear powerplant maybe)?

It runs on Linux.

> so a vulnerability in one process cannot give you access to the content of the other

Unless it is a kernel vulnerability in LXC that allows you to escape the container.

But you are right about POSIX.

IMO containers are not about security - if you wanted security you would go with designs that were built with it in mind from hardware to software.

Containers and microservice architecture allow faster and better managed deployments of services in large distributed scale (aka the cloud) and this is the main selling point.

> I'm not a PS4 (or any other console) fanboy, but I read this and can't help wonder:
> It there anything that stops a user from replacing the hard drive in a PS4 with a larger
> drive themselves (wonky interfaces? self destruct when opened cases? magic formatting
> of the drive that can't readily be duplicated?)? Is it a typical 3.5 inch drive or a smaller drive?

It is no problem to replace PS4 disk. You just get compatible (in size - 2,5", max 9,5mm tall, similar performance - nothing fancy, you can even pop SSD) drive, open the console, pop in the new drive, download and install OS from USB flashdrive and it is done. There are plenty of guides on Internet if you Google it. You can also buy an accessory which adds 500gb storage to PS4.

Also you wouldn't be buing entire new PS4 system if you were short on storage. So this is not the case here.

So really this is not a big news. I don't quite get why they haven't launched with a bigger drive but it just normal that they release new hardware revision later after launch and adress problems (like limited storage) - it is for people who _do_not_own_PS4_yet_.

As I know from my job experience large scale IT deployments inside their WAN networks can filter whatever the fuck they want. Sudden appearance of ADP as an enterprise deployable package - who the fuck cares? We are right now black/white listing all the stuff we need. Who needs to introduce something like ADP that probably can mess with loads of internal services and need to be tested if you could just not use it? if an user has a problem with advertisements he/she is probably far away of what he/she should be doing on their workstation.

> Growing up in the 80's, I played video games quite frequently. Now, though, I find myself avoiding them.

You were (I assume) a child then so you've liked playing games in general. I guess if you were your 80's age now you would be gaming since games now are AWESOME... if you have time for gaming (which you don't)..

> One reason is cost. I realize the cost really has probably not gone
> up that significantly from the NES days, but at that time it was my
> parents paying for a new console and games. Now I have to figure
> out how to justify a $60 game.

That is how I've justified building RaspberryPi ($40) +2 classic controllers ($6) +SD card ($4) and RetroPie ($0) and some hacking (and maybe a charger and HDMI cable and so on) so I casually can play Contra or Bomberman with my girlfriend and it rocks PLUS I get a feeling that I am a geek which is nice. ;)

> No, you don't just ignore this problem and you absolutely don't put a system wide
> rule in effect to ignore the problem. If you get such an error it indicates a very
> fundamental problem wit the logic of the program. It is not trivial, and in real world
> situations could be deadly.

First of all I don't object you - you just don't divide by zero cause math. And it is it.

But could you please describe one (or more if you wish) situation in which such behavior could be deadly?

Seriously I briefly thinked about it in this context (programing) and can't think of any serious practical aplication. I know I feel bad about myself about it... but I really don't know.

I only have experience with customer grade SSDs and not with enterprise ones. But as it comes for customer SSDs most of the ones I've used or maintained caused no problems. But I recall one HP made drive that used crash after about a year - total data loss after a year of usage. Reformat and the drive was ok - another year passed and crash and data loss. As it turned out the disk had some encryption procedures in firmware which were faulty - firmware upgrade (hopefully) fixed it but also said firmware update required to erease all data. I've always had decent backups as monthly system image and daily data so recovery was easy. But I am aware that SSD drives are much less reliable than HDDs due to controller/firmware problems. And this is IMHO a general known fact.

[Citation needed] - seriously are you sure?

It is obvious by these limitations that Nintendo uses backward compatibility to ease up prev to next gen transition for users and thus drive up sales. The later editions as Game Boy Micro and so on are usually released some time after initial launch in time that game library is large enough for the new system that they can sell it. Also Nintendo is known for making revised editions to - again - drive up sales. Like the new versions of devices on which only few exclusive titles use the full potential of the hardware. And the new exclusives are not backward compatible (which is sane from a marketing point of view).

Nintendo handhelds were always technically inferior to competition (like Sega and Atari in GB days) so they figured out that backward compatibility will get them a heads start so each of their new (technically inferior to competition) handheld console would launch with broad game library and convince current users to switch. In my opinion it is a smart move but also induces some (minor) technical limitations. Nintendo has a tradition of one gen backward compatibility (in some way) for each of their systems and launch. Sony and MS should learn from that. MS is learning. :)

> The reason they didn't want this to begin with (i'm speculating here) is profit.

Duh. And what is wrong with doing anything for profit? I guess they want more sales. Duh. It is in my opinion good for Microsoft and good for the users with large Xbox360 games library that they can get a new console and benefit from playing prev and next gen games. What is wrong with that? It is how business should be done - everybody (supplier/consumer) is happy.,

> They wanted to make people buy newer and more games.

Duh. That is the way gaming industry works. Nothing wrong with that.

> That didn't work, so now they have to pretend when
> they said it couldn't be done that they weren't lying.

They said that? Quote please.

> https://www.keepassx.org/ [keepassx.org]

> It's a password vault application. Remember local applications,
> they run on your computer, that you physically have to be at to use(usually).

Usually Keepass and alike are used to store passwords for network services. So the computer storing your passwords in KeepassX is still networked and susceptible to attacks. Also people tend to use multiple machines (sometime even not own) so in order to use KeepassX you still need to transfer its data file somehow. You could keep this file on a pendrive probably with portable version of the app.

So KeepassX in my opinion is less convinient to use than Lastpass - with the latter I just login to service (using two factor authentication) and access my passwords. But mind you I use Keepass only for not-so-sensitive accounts like 100+ eshops, forums and crap like thant (not financial, medical, otherwise sensitive, essential internet authentication account hubs like Google or Facebook).

So for me in order to use Keepass would be to carry a medium with data file (which can be lost, stolen, copied) or to share the data file via some kind of authenticated network service like SFTP, HTTPS, Dropbox etc.

I know the Keepass/local pass file way would be probably slightly more secure but Lastpass method is just more convinient.

Oh and if I were to use password manager I would not go Keepass way - what for? Passwords are just some lines in text file. I would just use encrypted text file, shell utilities like grep and have access to it via SSH with two way authentication (I love Google Authenticator with PAM module for my private use).

My point being that if used correctly (only for not sensitive accounts, two form authentication enabled) a trusted service like Lastpass (I find them very concerned about security - they are targeted all the time) is quite secure and more convinient that Keepass.

Also I would love to have some offline device for my sensitive stuff like financial, medical and so on - I lone for something in form of small ipod-like MP3 player that can be fed with data and when prompted for authentication I could choose my credentials from it and display it would generate QR code with token that could be scanned via webcam to authenticate. Of coure it would be suspectible to MITM attacks and physical loss but in my opinion it would be the most secure way for using password store without sharing it via network.

Maybe just put all printers in separated VLAN and allow client access them only via print servers?