And how does this matter at all to the millions of residential users? You, know, the people who don't get static addresses.
No, you will not have "permanent static [addresses]". Your IPv6 prefix will not be "yours"; it can (and very likely WILL) be just as dynamic as any IPv4 address today. (esp. since every US ISP I'm aware of is using DHCPv6-PD to hand out prefixes)
It's not called ARP, but it does have the same mechanism... Neighbor Discovery. It's done via multicast, btw.
Right, tridge completely reverse engineered BK from the output of "HELP"; and Kevin Mitnik could launch nukes by whistling into a phone. He did a lot more than just send "help" to a bkd. He didn't do anyone any good; git is a pile of shit... it was designed in a rush to handle exactly *one* thing. People only flock to it because a) it's free, and b) "the kernel uses it". (which, for the record, are the same two reasons thousands of projects used bitkeeper.)
Tridge did a f***load more than just send "help" to a bkd. The most damning part was that he continued working on it after a) being told to stop, and b) agreeing to stop.
But yes, Larry was very tired of the community continually pissing on his hard work. Tridge was one who shit in the sandbox and got us all thrown out.
Like... WHAT WE'VE BEEN USING FOR DECADES! There are MANY reasons to hate systemd, and only 2(?) reasons to want to use it -- and even those aren't that compelling. Linux (and every other *NIX) has been booting, starting, and stopping applications for decades, but now we have to have a mini-OS to do this (and hundreds of other things that have been very sucessfully handled by numerous other applications for just as long -- like getty, inetd, syslog, portmap, etc.)
No, the bug is systemd thinking it's the whole damned universe. The kernel cmdline is the Kernel's Command Line, not f'ing systemd's.
That's one insignificant reason among thousands.
Obviously, you didn't learn much there yourself? 25MHz * ??? = 2.5GHz and that would be one core of a modern CPU. (the answer is 100 by the way.) [Security DVRs are some of the least powerful hardware around. We aren't talking about a current gen Tivo Romio -- which is still a bad choice for mining.]
Having driven a '94 honda civic with a power steering rack and no power steering pump for years, the only time you'd notice the lack of "power" is at rest and very low speeds (i.e. people-pushing-the-car speeds.) The manual rack feels almost exactly the same when in motion -- I only know it's different because I know the rack was changed.
The loss of power steering isn't what created a wreck. Driver panic is at least 90% of it. Further panic when the brakes lost boost, plus the unsafe speed and wet roads... and someone plows into her while the airbags aren't armed.
I have an account, for one.
As it was provided by a human being, who is presumed to have the capacity for rational thought, that would be sufficient as "authorization". If they were not actually authorized to provide such "confidential" customer information, then they would be on the hook, not use you as the receiver of the information. Computers, on the other hand, do exactly as they are programmed; programmers do make mistakes. Those errors are not authorization.
If we return to the office building example, this would be equivalent to walking into a building, past a security desk (manned or not), through a set of doors with no locks or signs, down a corridor to a common printer and taking whatever unclaimed output is still there.
Hah. Only because David called him first and hung up.
(by today's screwy courts, we'd add identity theft/fraud to his charges for pretending to be Prof. Falken, i.e. not correcting WOPR/Joshua when it asked.)
[I know, I'm ruining the movie.]
the server provided the information to him.
Right. He was just sitting there looking at a gmail screen when an AT&T server just started filling his browser with ICC's and email addresses.
He had to *request* the address for each, individual, ICC, through an internal interface that is not publicized. An interface he found while digging through the activation process (looking at the network traffic), apparently. The CFAA has no requirements for a lock-and-key system to constitute unauthorized access; without authorization is just what it says on the tin... no "authorization" has been given. (the old "well, they didn't tell me I couldn't" argument.)
Fighter's have radar jamming and other "stealth" technology making them very hard to track. And if you really think someone cannot fly a plane into or out of US airspace without a dozen systems watching them, you are a paranoid freak. This sort of crap happens all the time -- smugglers and drug runners do it often enough. ('tho no one is doing it with a 777