Despite all the "new security features" in Windows 10, or perhaps in spite of them as a work-around, Windows 10 seems to be the most "law enforcement friendly" OS yet (not just out of Windows all versions, but out of all operating systems).
Can we please stop using MPEG-LA technologies on the web?! This nonsense will never end otherwise. At best you buy a few years with some new technology while they pretend to not charge you so everyone adopts the technology. And then they come knocking.
The only way to end this cycle is to stop using their technologies. Full stop.
It appears to be slower than DRAM, so it's not going to be a sufficient replacement. I also see no indication of how much storage it actually offers. The range between RAM and SSDs isn't that large and I think it's going to be a huge difference whether they can offer 16GB, 32GB or even 64GB at an affordable price.
For a lot of users 16GB might not be worthwhile, 64GB might actually allow some people to not use a SSD at all, so it I think they will have to provide 32GB of storage. That seems obvious enough that the fact it's not stated in the article seems somewhat concerning.
The article specifically puts it at a price point lower than DRAM but higher than flash. It's a passive array which helps make it cheaper than DRAM, but stores only one bit per cell, while modern NAND stores up to 3 bits per cell.
Interesting. At 128GB it's definitely practical to put your system partition and applications on it. If you rely heavily on cloud services that would be more than sufficient for most people and even if it isn't you could add an SSD for music and videos.
If they release it next year and it turns out well, I can certainly see Apple pulling such a move for the MacBook (Air).
128Gb is only a small factor below state-of-the-art flash chips, if at all. I think 3d NAND drives it up to 384 Gbit/die. Don't know about the die size though.
"Each megabyte of 3D Xpoint will certainly be significantly cheaper than the equivalent amount of Ram. And the new technology has the added advantage of being non-volatile, meaning it does not "forget" information when the power is switched off.
But, unfortunately it is still not quite as fast as Ram, and some - but not all - applications need the extra speed the older tech provides."
If what they claim is true, it has the potential to be actually cheaper than both DRAM and NAND, based on the density. The biggest disadvantage at the moment is that is so new that we don't know much.
What can be read from the announcement: it's not as rewritable as DRAM: only up to 1000 more writes than NAND. It's also slower than DRAM. But it seems better than NAND in all aspects.
From my understanding of how this works that's mostly a consequence of the Tor browser trying to achieve network privacy and anonymity at the wrong layer.
The right way would be to route all the requests through Tor, not just those from the engine of the browser.
I used to be of this opinion, but [1] changed my mind.
The problem is that there's a huge potential to deanonymize the user at an exit node because of all sorts of traffic other than web browsing. Do all of your chat programs encrypt everything? How about your email client? What about every daemon on your system that accesses the Internet?
At the very least, all of these can be used to fingerprint you.
WebRTC is a great example of why the user-agent turns out to be the right level to think about anonymity over Tor.
I agree that Tor is a special case, but who uses Tor without Tor Button, Tor Browser, or something similar? It's easy to disable WebRTC in those instances.
Regarding internal VPN IPs, I don't understand how this would help an attacker. If someone has broken into a VPN network and is in a position where they could make use of that data, then it's game over anyway. Otherwise, what do you want with an internal IP, besides fingerprinting?
By the way, fingerprinting no doubt is an issue, along with a dozen or so other JavaScript APIs that leak data. If you don't want to be fingerprinted, use something like NoScript. Advertisers can already uniquely identify you based on various other data leaked by JS, don't know why WebRTC has been singled out for this reason.
Because IP addresses feel private. Even though you send one with every packet. Even though the extra one sent by webrtc is the one behind your NAT, and probably just 192.168.[0,1].
They can actually be private. What if you set up a proxy or a VPN with the express purpose of masking your real IP address, and then WebRTC barfs it out on demand anyway?
Again, WebRTC does not "barf" out your real IP in a VPN situation -- it barfs out the VPN's internal IP, which is meaningless to anyone except for the VPN's operator (and they have that data anyway).
Your actual, ISP-assigned IP remains hidden to any site you visit.
I thought it would provide every IP address held by the system, which would include both the internal VPN IP address and your actual ISP-provided IP address.
Why can't they just disable WebRTC by default and ask the user for permission like they do with location and so on, without revealing the IP before the user accepts the connection? Also, maybe the user could easily whitelist some connections/WebRTC IDs?
I'm not sure asking permission really helps. With things like location and video end users at least know what it means, and can make a somewhat educated choice. How do you properly ask an uneducated user the question "Should this site be allowed to open an arbitrary data connection?" - sites that want to will think of some vaguely plausible reason and users will click away.
Honestly, the whole account "integration" just pisses me off. I want my Gmail account to be separated from my Youtube account and from the Maps account.
The main reason (by far) Google unified them is so they they can more easily track everyone across multiple properties.
