I’ll try an analogy to explain better. The firewall is a lock on the door to your house. Vlans are a rule that to go from one room to another, you must go back out the locked door and back in.
So an attacker tries to come in and can’t pick the lock. You are safe.
Another attacker can pick the lock and get into a room. But if they can pick the lock for one room, they can pick the same lock again and get into any other rooms because it’s the same lock protecting every room in the house.
Lithium is pretty much the best possible chemical to build batteries out of.
Nickel iron batteries, while heavier and less energy dense have virtually infinite lifespan. As such it is a far better battery for home power walls than lithium.
if you allowed that to happen you either did not set firewall rules strict enough
The argument was that the vlans force a device through the firewall so that the firewall can protect it. But for that to happen, like you said the firewall wasn’t strick enough or didn’t have a defense against a 0 day.
So the vlan doesn’t do anything either way. Either the firewall works in which case you don’t need vlans to force local traffic through them a second time or they don’t work in which case again the vlan did nothing.
He’s a YouTuber who covers 3d printing but the current regime has moved him into Rossman technology legal-rights news.
The title of the article is extraordinary wrong that makes it click bait.
There is no “yes to copilot”
It is only a formalization of what Linux said before: All AI is fine but a human is ultimately responsible.
" AI agents cannot use the legally binding “Signed-off-by” tag, requiring instead a new “Assisted-by” tag for transparency"
The only mention of copilot was this:
“developers using Copilot or ChatGPT can’t genuinely guarantee the provenance of what they are submitting”
This remains a problem that the new guidelines don’t resolve. Because even using AI as a tool and having a human review it still means the code the LLM output could have come from non GPL sources.
To compromise a device on a vlan it had to get through the firewall. If your firewall couldn’t stop it then it can attack any other device by going through the firewall because again the firewall didn’t stop the device from being compromised in the first place.
You can do that at the router. You don’t need vlans to block Mac addresses.
haven’t really found any personal need for VLAN segregation
I feel like many setup vlans “because it exists”, not for actual need. The security reason generally doesn’t exist for home labs because most need to setup bridging or you can’t access the devices on the secure vlan at all.
Resale certificates are for tax savings, not legality. Anyone could and did sell their games. It’s the law.
"Over a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court first articulated the “first sale doctrine” in copyright law, under which a copyright owner’s exclusive right to control the ownership or transfer of a lawfully made copy of copyrighted content is exhausted after the owner’s first sale of that copy. In that case, the copyright owner sold books to wholesalers with a printed notice announcing that any retailer who sold the book for less than $1.00 was engaging in copyright infringement. The Supreme Court refused to enforce the restriction against a retail department store, which had purchased the books from a wholesaler, holding that the copyright owner’s exclusive right to control distribution of the book applied only to the first sale of copies of the book to the wholesaler.
Subsequently, Congress codified the first sale doctrine in the Copyright Act. In its current form, §109(a) of the Copyright Act allows the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of his copy without the copyright owner’s authorization."
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=455c0b5a-e31e-470e-ad33-1803699b5035
Under many licenses no, you did not
Many means a significant percentage of the total. That makes your statement false. License transfer restrictions were only in the realm of million dollar corporate sales. All physical game floppies and cds were legally resold.
Used game stores legally existed.
Steam was by no means the first form of DRM
While there was a game that had online authentication before Steam, Steam popularized it to make it industry standard.
Copy protection is very different than online authentication that restricts your ownership rights.
. If you bought a CD or floppy disks in a store, you were buying a license to use the code on the disks, but you were explicitly denied the rights to resell
Absolutely untrue! You were denied the right to copy the software. If you bought a CD, you absolutely had the right to resell it.
Purposely making code and behind the door deals to exclude any browser development or success for years does, yes.
There was no code to exclude other browsers. Netscape at the time was the monopoly web browser. Netscape failed because Netscape 4 was a disaster. JWZ wrote about it extensively. I personally experienced Netscape’s failure. Netscape 4 had a bug in their dialer that couldn’t handle area codes. When I called to tell them, despite having already paid tens of thousands to Netscape in licensing fees, they wanted $80k to look at the problem. I called my friends who ran other ISP’s to ask them what they were doing because Netscape 4 was broken. They said they weren’t even trying- they were shipping only IE 4 on their CD’s. I wanted my customers to have the choice so I spent the development time to work around Netscape’s bugs and had my tech support field the calls.
Netscape ran themselves off a cliff. The Netscape coders themselves said so. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that MS sabotaged them somehow with “code and deals”.
So is Netflix a monopoly then because it wiped out video rental stores?
As I already said, monopoly is a label given to businesses that have dominant marketshare. It doesn’t matter how it is obtained. Once you own the market, you have restrictions placed on you that smaller companies don’t have to keep the free market working.
Monopoly is again, the manipulation of market forces and regulatory control.
That’s not the definition used by the government. You are declared a monopoly and after that restrictions are placed on your actions.
Steam is not the main force behind that.
Steam started it! You must be too young to remember the uproar in the gaming community about HL2 being the first Steam game and requiring Internet authentication to play with the ridiculous restriction of not being allowed to resell the game you bought at the store. It was years later before they eased selling restrictions but still never to the amount that consumers enjoyed before Steam existed. Gabe was the original techbro: “Hey I know it’s illegal but what if we do it anyway. Then we use the profits to pay the lawyers to make it legal.” It’s why France sued Valve to require them to follow the laws that exist for everything else. https://www.videogameseurope.eu/news/video-games-europe-welcomes-french-supreme-court-decision-on-the-resale-of-digital-video-games/
Steam was like Walmart moving into a new territory- with the added consumer hostility of adding restrictions to purchases that consumers used to enjoy. It was because of Steam’s success that other businesses realized that consumers would take abuse if it meant they could get their entertainment conveniently.
Trump purging his best staff like Stalin in 1938.
Stop connecting to My connection. Connect to your own.
Why does the browser need to open?
Serious answer:
I believe many office environments have customer service reps using only web apps. They don’t run an .exe, they go to a webpage that has the corporate web apps.
Personally I had to spend a lot time getting my raspberry PI to autoload Firefox at boot because I have a custom html home automation panel. A distro that had the option of “boot to web page” at start up would have saved me an hour of googling.
but actively doing things to make other browsers difficult to download and use on their operating system.
That is absolutely not true. I was President of a mid sized ISP at the time. We shipped both IE and Netscape on CD for consumers to pick which they wanted to install.
The bundling was a problem because of their already pre existing dominant market position.
Apple is not declared a monopolist because they do not own and control chrome
Microsoft did not own and control Netscape’s rendering engine which was the really dominant market player. Apple uses their market position to make Safari the majority web browser in the US. (phones outnumber home pc’s and Apple has over 50% marketshare.)
go ahead and contact epic’s legal department.
I don’t give a fuck about Epic. Steam is Walmart and Epic is Kmart.
It’s to stop someone with rights to generate keys
If it was only about developers then consumers could have the right to resell their game at whatever price they wanted.
EU countries wouldn’t have to sue Steam for consumer rights:
https://blog.igv.com/steam-freedom-equality-and-game-resale-steam-vs-france/
It was restricting the web browser market.
If bundling a web browser is an uncompetitive act that requires government intervention then Apple, Google (Android), and commercial Linux distros would also be sued by the government. Microsoft was sued, not for the action in isolation but because of their monopoly position. They didn’t get their monopoly from bunding a web browser. They already had a monopoly. People overwhelmingly chose Windows because it was the best. At the time Linux didn’t have consumer friendly distros and MacOS was still cooperatively multitasked like Windows 1.0 from 1982.
Steam’s monopoly destroyed ownership of games. You used to buy a game at Egghead, and when you were done playing, you could sell it for whatever the free market said it was worth.
Steam’s monopoly also means you can’t open a small game store- they wiped out those businesses just like Walmart. Vendors deal with Walmart because a tiny profit of being in every Walmart is better than a large profit from a few stores exactly like vendors sell on Steam.
Why tho?