NAT maps a bunch of internal addresses to a single external address. You can't, from outside of a NAT'd host, easily identify any internal hosts and you certainly can't connect to arbitrary ports on them - that's technically impossible since 65536 isn't going to somehow become 2 or more times it's own number.
I hope you've imaged those floppies at the very least. It should be fairly straightforward to extract text out of an oddball format provided it's not actually encrypted in someway, but once those platters(?) demagnetize that data is gone for good.
What's interesting about this post being modded interesting is the number of people who apparently read it and thought "yep, nothing wrong with that logic". Or have never thought seriously, and apparently have no idea, what "black hat" hacker means.
Tor is designed to be low-latency. Such complicated routing would definitely make a large latency tradeoff, since you'd have several routes, all of different latencies, which would mean the packets would arrive out of order and you'd need to delay to determine if you'd actually received a complete set before reconstructing an in-order stream to the final destination.
Attacks from the inside are an entirely different type of beast to start with. How did they get in in the first place? If someone can physically log on to an inside system and pretend to be a real user, then you have a physical or user security problem, still not an internal security problem. A firewall wouldn't save you, because the attacker looks like a regular legitimate user who would have access to those services anyway.
The original post was about the firewall on a host vs. the network firewall. The network firewall prevents people going around mapping ports on systems. Heck, unaltered raw NAT does that which is why people fought to keep it even in IPv6.
But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None.
That's like saying what is the purpose of locking all the doors and windows in your house that no one uses? Hey if you want to keep the side windows and the garage doors unlocked, go ahead. If someone strolls in and steals your possessions, that's you own fault.
This metaphor is incredibly wrong. A port no one is listening on is a damn wall. It does not do anything. It isn't a doorway. It's a blank featureless wall.
Which is the OPs point: a firewall on internal network hosts doesn't make a lot of sense a lot of the time. The reason to do it would be if you were adding IP rules to the port some service operated on - but for a lot of them that's likely to be "accept all connections from local IPs". And it's not very useful to IP limit if you have dynamically assigned hosts, or you use cloud services and SSL to talk to your database server or the like, since you might end up updating the firewall incredibly often to stay up to date with the rules.
A firewall on a regular consumer desktop PC is a good idea mostly because at any given time you tend to vary what you run, and don't want things opening up ports you don't quite expect them to. But even then...still more of a Windows problem then a Unix one.
Do you drink coffee? Congratulations: you take a recreational drug. And no, you didn't start with any more information then anyone else. You did it because everyone else does it.
The European courts have set a precedent on the basis that the number of cases would be small, and that living people would thus be available to conduct detailed research on each one.
Naturally Google have been hit with something like 250,000 requests because of course people are trying to have every bit of material about them removed. And by people of course, it's a surprising number of lawyers, CEOs and companies.
Or over the sum of the billions of planets out there, it may turn out that at any given time there are a few hundred in the midst of an industrial revolution, who's light is just now reaching us.
Space is really, really big. And one consequence of that is provided we know what to look for, and have the capability to see it, we have a very large sample population to test for various observations.
Also no one is saying this is the only way life can possibly exist. The assumption with the search for extraterrestial life is that our first goal is to find anyone else out there, and the easiest way to do that is to look for people who are enough like us that we can make logical assumptions about them (which is a bit anthropological principlely but it's valid).
If tomorrow we discovered intelligent gas clouds living in the Jovian atmosphere, and correlated a bunch of spectral features to them, then you can bet we'd also be looking for life which obeyed those parameters.
You should try understanding modern agriculture. The hint is that subsistence farming tends to be wildly inefficient.
The point is that it's irrelevant how much electricity you use, the question is where does the electricity come from?
If the government were throwing up new coal plants to meet a rising demand, then reducing demand would be relevant (not the case though). If its not, then the main objective in efficiency measures is to try to stall growth in consumption long enough to meet a new normal in how we build out capacity. Not this absurd idea that there's something inherently right about reducing "energy" use. There isn't. The exact thing we need to do is reduce CO2 emissions - that is all.
In a similar vein it's why I've little patience for hybrid/electric car takedowns based on the energy of production of the vehicle. That's irrelevant really: the question is in what form was it acquired? A hybrid or electric car built solely with electrically powered equipment is better then a conventional gas powered one, because there is no reason whatsoever it can't be powered by CO2-less sources.
Somewhere out there is an fossil fuel lobby which has had detailed meetings over reframing the language about climate change just laughing over how they've managed to divide opinion by getting people to mix up their terminology and it worked.
Why are we talking about energy use?
Energy use has been brought in as a patsy in climate change, because if we actually talked about CO2-emissions more often then the oil and gas industry would still be unable to pretend they're remotely part of the solution.
Presently, it doesn't matter how much electricity I, you or anyone else uses. It's not a number that needs to go down, because we have no reasonable level of non-CO2 emitting grid capacity, nor initiatives to build out more at a pace likely to keep up with a reasonable level of demand increase.
Yeah I have no real conception of the different timespan units intuitively. Micrometers to nanometers I can grok, but I don't work with timescales often enough to have internalized it properly.