I suppose this will spur research into centrifuge therapy to help patients pass kidney stones.

In about 25 or 30 years the technology will be well-studied enough that we'll see the first installation in a major hospital, and maybe 10 years after that the insurance companies will cover the treatment costs.

Just like how MRI machines were developed.

(In the mean time, doctors will advise kidney stone patients to stay off of roller coasters, because there's no evidence that the therapy is safe or effective.)

I do not.

Why - is it important?

(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)

Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.

Not to bring facts into the argument, but during her stint as SoS, Clinton:

1) Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia
2) Sold dual use (civil/military) tech to Russia
3) Overrode expert opinion and ordered military intervention into Libya that led to the downfall of Gaddafi

That #3 is interesting. Clinton was advised that Gaddafi was the only thing keeping militant islamists at bay, and that taking him out would result in them forming a separate state based on terrorism.

We now know that by overriding the advice of experts, Clinton essentially caused the formation of ISIS and the subsequent deaths of hundreds of people, here and abroad.

Here's what the Washington Times reported at the time:

“I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an intervention that was going to be disastrous,” Mr. Kucinich told The Times. “What was being said at the State Department — if you look at the charge at the time — it wasn’t so much about what happened as it was about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal.”

People say that Trump is scary and will lead us into war, but they conveniently forget that Hillary Clinton actually *did* lead us into war - under false pretenses!

Oh, and let's not forget all the people who had access to top secret classified information on Hillary's server.

Liberals. Always with the insults.

Other than name calling, what have you got? Name one thing that Clinton has done *ever* that has benefited the American people?

Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".

It's almost like he doesn't have a team of extremely smart people working on tactics which are vetted with A-B testing and focus groups.

It seems like everything he does has a negative editorial comment nowadays.

Are Clintons actions editorialized as well? I haven't seen any good examples.

Despite the brass ring TOS of whatever version you were previously running, an infection is as an infection does.

Also, read your antibiotic prescription carefully.
* may include systemd[**]

[**] First we keep Berlin, then we take Warsaw, someday soon we annex Prague, and eventually perhaps we'll incite the Arabs to cut Manhattan down to size.

All hail PC-BSD: the systemd-free libertarian antibiotic of last resort.

s/warn/brag/
s/Hackers/contributing members of society/
s/lowlife/1%/
s/iocane/iocane/

It is a noun in this context as well (scroll down a little: "noun: the act of making an attack while parrying one (as in boxing); also : a blow thus given in boxing")

Once you give a programmer a tool, that can do IF, Loops and store variables it becomes a development platform.

And once you give someone a piece of amber with velociraptor DNA inside it, and a way to embryonize it, it becomes a way to make a cool theme park.

He is talking about a computer program called lzexe, not the compression algorithm that it used.

sure, its only a certain class of weapon.... for now. slippery slope and all

IoT is still in its infancy. Forget dodgy equipment from random Chinese companies, even so called reputable vendors still do not get security right. I do a lot of home automation stuff, but I prefer Z-wave / Zigbee devices over all this WiFi crap that the likes of Google and Apple seem to prefer. Often those devices are easier to set up and troubleshoot as well... in terms of reliability, WiFi sucks.

Where I do use IP devices (cameras, Philips Hue, etc), they go on a separate subnet that can talk to the home automation hub only. And I never use devices that require outside access.

As was pointed out in aother article recently, modern botnet software is designed to fly under the radar and generate reasonable amounts of traffic instead of crapflooding the connection for all it's worth. Given the size of a typical botnet and the bandwidth of residential internet these days, you can still bring down sites easily without each individual bot breaking a sweat.

Checking traffic volume won't cut it anymore, you need to look for unusual traffic patterns. But a good start is to enable the firewall in your router (many of them have decent ones these days), and allow your IoT devices access only to the server they need to connect to.

Especially if that password
- Is a default password that is the same for every device sold (these days a lot of equipment ships with unique random passwords)
- Isn't changed by the user during setup
- Can't be changed by the user. (What the hell, OpenElec?)

Even a 64-bit address would have been seen as doubling memory requirements of routing hardware for no good reason.

There could have been an optional 32-bit client sub-address ignored by the public routing backbone.

Then, for most purposes, non-backbone routers need two routing tables: a routing table for the public network (if more complex than a few simple gateways), and an organization-local internal routing table (with 32-bit addresses, just like the public table).

The actual problem is that each TCP/IP connection would require for the connection tuple (src_IP, src_port, dst_IP, dst_port) not 12 bytes, but 20 bytes.

Probably something could have been done to mitigate that, too, as things stood long ago, but I don't feel like speculating further just now.

Even without mitigation, let's suppose you have an FTP server and you want to guarantee at least 16 kb/s for each active FTP connection (circa 14.4/28.8 modem technology). You need to provide nearly a kbit/s network bandwidth per byte of connection tuple held in system memory (we'll ignore the messy nature of FTP, much of whose ugliness could have been averted by a better original IP design).

At the same time, NAT isn't all bad. It does help to conceal the internal structure of your network from the evil public network (and makes exposing your non-firewall hosts more of a sin of commission rather than a simple sin of omission).

NAT also erects a barrier to ultimate host fingerprinting and traffic analysis, at least until HTTP came along to ruin things with user agent strings and cookies.

Some people are quick to point out that a low barrier is no barrier at all, but I like to force my adversaries to at least put on their ballet shoes before attacking my network, and then to stay alert for people with trunks full of tools good at hopping low barriers.

My proposal doesn't much complicate the backbone routing table, except for Sandvine, who would have—once we got there—been pissed in a big way (counterfactually), to much rejoicing.