However, if someone could develop a drop-in replacement for Windows which was compatible with all the APIs
Have you just described the goal of Wine?
There is also the question whether this video will influence more people to commit suicide. The Samaritans have a section on their website explaining how to report and dramatize suicides responsibly.
The problem is that it encourages other people to commit suicide too.
Remember - we're comparing IPv4 with NAT against IPv6.
Yes the ISP allocates the IPv6 prefix, but then again with NAT every source packet has the same IPv4 address. The real difference is that with IPv6 every single request can be given a different source address. If the source addresses are picked randomly from the
I've never understood this concern. With IPv6 I have, say, 2^64 addresses to use. I could use a different source IP address for each and every HTTP request I send out. Even at 1000 requests a second we'll all be long dead before you had to reuse a source address.
IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible.
All these posts and no-one has mentioned it runs on FreeBSD?
feel free to operate your own resolvers.
Preferably with DNSSEC turned on.
Facebook are willing to sue. They don't want people to do this either. It devalues their service (even if the users are the "product", they still need to provide something of value to attract users).
Facebook probably wants to be able to charge companies for access to potential employees' data
businesses actually have a product if they're offering Cloud services, whereas dotcom companies generally did not.
If there is a Dotcom bubble and if it does burst, how many customers are the cloud services going to have left?
Does the operating system not provide the SSL libraries? Or do you actually have to code the encryption routines into each application on iOS?
I would have thought the export restrictions would only apply to the SSL libraries, not the application that uses them.
CRLs are revocation lists which used to be published by CAs and clients were able to periodically download.
As a concept they were replaced with OCSP (online certificate status protocol). Here the client requests the current status of a certificate each time they are presented with it. The idea was that it would be more timely and up to date and meant CAs didn't need to publish a complete list of revoked certificates.
Now it seems Chrome wants to go back to a bodged version of the old way of doing things where Chrome periodically requests the CRL from the browser vendor or Chrome is periodically updated with the latest CRL?