> But we're at the point in some place where there aren't even enough IPv4 addresses to give to ISP customers even if they're using NAT.
Er, that's a slight exaggeration. It's not uncommon to have 2,000 or more NAT clients behind a single public IP address. 2K * 4B = 8 trillion possible hosts... about 1,000 hosts per living person.
Well, it has limits. You can hide 2000 people behind an address but they might have sporadic connection issues, long held connections such as SSH sessions will be very annoying to support [0] or the users will have to resort to frequent keepalives to make it work regardless, which produces more traffic to destinations you probably don't have in a cache. In some jurisdictions you have to log which customer used what IP (and port) at which point. You can do static assignments but you will have customers (customer homes, e.g. family with perhaps 10 devices or so could be realistic) for which 1000 ports just will not be enough do you will have to dynamically assign spare ports and log those. You might also get more support calls, because the NAT is dropping connections to radically in a peak e.g. a soccer match or whatever. Also the CG-NAT gateway isn't for free and the bigger it needs to be, the pricier it is. Also you might still need to buy some IPv4, perhaps more than you would need to buy if you deployed IPv6 and used it for the connections, where it is possible, taking e.g. almost the full load to Google/ YouTube and Facebook off your gateway.
This solves the rogue operator problem, but doesn't solve the bit where an operator comes in expecting to build a large mining installation. Even if they paid something close to the export premium (perhaps lower due to diminished transmission losses), the asks are larger than the utility currently provides.
This leaves the utility with a dilemma. Bitcoin miners can up and move pretty easily, but the hydro dams are stuck for life. If somewhere cheaper pops up, or if a double spend attack causes a bitocalpyse, the utility has little recourse but to pass on the costs to remaining consumers.
Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan.
My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.
Hi Everyone, author of post here with an update for you. The most modern x-ray systems in use by the TSA at airports to screen carry-on bags can indeed see through lithium batteries. It also differentiates densities, and it seems to me that the latest tech should therefore be able to indicate the difference between a battery and C4 in a battery-shaped box. So is it that the airports subject to the laptop ban have the older tech? Well...
Well, for whatever reason, they stole more equipment more recently. Could be that the new stuff is more advanced, or maybe we bombed the gear they took from Mosul. I don't have more details that would provide insight.
It is certainly correct that DHS, and to some extent our government generally, is known for over-classifying things either out of laziness, desire to avoid embarrassment, or because they believe that anything remotely security related needs to be hidden. As an intelligence analyst, you likely didn't see the misclassified things (I'd imagine roughly everything you did was classified for good reason). It's the political officials who are more likely to over-classify.
That's a fair accusation - you're responsible for increasing the classification of material if you find it to be under-classified, or request a review in the opposite case. So, it wouldn't be surprising if something came across the desk of a decision-maker or the IC's version of middle-management and they selfishly raised its classification hoping it'd be lost in a blackhole for fear of embarrassment, etc.
I will let my source know your feelings when I next speak with him or her. :)
I think the implication that he or she was trying to make is that statistically, those on the coasts travel by air more frequently. As someone with a mom who was very afraid of flying and terror related risks thereto, I know that fear largely dissipated when I finally got her to fly a few times. It's not an allegation of ignorance but that of relative inexperience (was my take, anyway).
The frequency argument is an interesting one. This recent survey seems to indicate that travel maps pretty closely (within a percent or three) to population of the area which I wasn't actually expecting (sure, lobbying group doing the research caveat caveat):
http://airlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016Survey.pd...
It also looks like there's a pretty significant difference between Midwest and Plains states in terms of numbers - less people, many fewer airports.
I totally get why the stereotype kinda makes sense given a certain view of a large swath of the country (though I've generally found these to be poor guides) but the statement would've worked without the regional or gender modifier :)
This is also a bit raw for me because I JUST flew my kids to Disney haha
Er, that's a slight exaggeration. It's not uncommon to have 2,000 or more NAT clients behind a single public IP address. 2K * 4B = 8 trillion possible hosts... about 1,000 hosts per living person.