I've had reasonable luck with microsoft's windows media center remote receivers and lirc. Although they don't all work the same. The first one I got was easier to use than later ones...
And frustation with atsc 3 and the media landscape led to me abandoning my htpcs.
“Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.”
- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Great resource. I'm building a basic version of this in my basement DIY style. Not going to get to industrial levels, but I think some fun experiments are to be had.
That article is making a narrower claim than you're implying. It argues that NAT is not a security mechanism by design and that some forms of NAT provide no protection, which is true.
It also explicitly acknowledges that NAT has side effects that resemble security mechanisms.
In typical deployments, those side effects mean internal hosts are not directly addressable from the public internet unless a mapping already exists. That reduces externally reachable attack surface.
So, the disagreement here is mostly semantic. NAT is not a security control in the design sense, but it does have security-relevant effects in practice.
I personally do consider NAT as part of a security strategy. It's sometimes nice to have.
Both of those articles are actually wrong. They say "if an unknown packet arrives from the outside interface, it’s dropped" and "While it is true that stateful ingress IPv4 NAT will reject externally initiated TCP traffic" respectively, but this is in fact not true for NAT, which you can see for yourself just by testing it. (It's true for a firewall, but not for NAT.)
The biggest security-relevant effects of NAT are negative. It makes people think they're protected when they aren't, and when used with port forwarding rules it reduces the search space needed to find accessible servers.
I agree it can be a useful tool in your toolbox sometimes, but a security tool it is not.
you are right, and that has been bugging me from the start and never got to fixing it. I tweaked it a bit to make it hopefully make much more sense now. Also I didn't know enclose.horse, and loved playing it, so thanks for pointing it out and for the nice feedback.
I thought fascist was the literal opposite of this. Where the population is indoctrinated and is more embedded into war machine. They kinda become one.
Vanilla authoritarianism, or other forms of government don't need approval from citizens. Oligarchy, monarch, etc... but at the end of the day, even a dictator needs to keep some critical level of people happy.
My point is the US at one point had taken the entire Korean Peninsula, and was pushed out by an initial push of hundreds of thousands, then over a million Chinese troops.
The reason tht US hasn't invaded North Korea since is because China won't allow it.
I disagree, the language itself is one of the more elegant parts of the system, and enables a lot of the rest of the elegance.
From a purely programming language theory, it's pretty unique.
I once tried to find a language that had all the same properties, and I failed. The Factor language is probably the closest. But they are still pretty different.
The relevant programming paradigm is string/term rewriting, which is featured in other programming languages such as Pure. It seems to have few direct applications outside of symbolic computing itself, compilers and related fields such as PL theory. (Formal calculi and languages are often specified in PL theory as rewrite rules, even though the practical implementation may ultimately differ.)
Mission statements are only there to resonate with people, so that part is working. If the mission doesn't make money, they aren't gonna do it just because it matches a statement
Is there any alternative?
reply