I mean, they might be very strong. So strong in fact that others may wish to come join on their rock. Perhaps for their strength these newcomers could make some payment to them to help defray the costs of protecting their space and providing services…
In that case though you own the property, however the government or courts can attach a lien to the property IF you fail to pay taxes as part of your dues to society for things like roads and schools.
Don’t like paying for such things? Go find some rock in the middle of nowhere and make your own way outside of the bounds of an established nation and provide for everything yourself.
When Red Green gets into consumer electronics…
So much red in that post history… This is not the place for you.
One option I’ve run into particularly with some self hosted systems is with notices going to the wrong one of multiple systems logged in. If you have several phones/tablets/computers using the same account notices can get twitchy. Could try killing of some old logins and reset this one to refresh the token it uses to keep you authed.
The Ghz shouldn’t make a difference, so long as it’s on the same network. The spectrum used is the physical medium, a device on the WiFi and wired networks of the same network can talk to each other. Different AP may (should) be on separate channels within the given spectrum to avoid signal overlap, but still work the same.
Why would you have to specify what frequency it’s on? The only thing the phone would need to replicate to the device is the network ID and key.
I don’t have a solid answer to that, but the recent PhD a candidate that got swiped as I gather was in the middle of a crowded space. If a hand ful of people showed up, and other emboldened by those first few joined in, pretty soon those handful of thugs would be surrounded and you can bet that there wouldn’t be a missing person out there. They have guns and handcuffs, but the people number in the millions and can overwhelm by sheer force of numbers.
I still recall the image of the police HQ in Minneapolis taken over during the Floyd protests. People went directly into the lion’s den and claimed their place. It can happen again, somewhere out there a spark is just waiting to be lit.
Fight back, if someone nearby is getting vanned by ‘police’ step in the way and demand THEIR papers and charges, grab videos, photos, plate numbers and anything else of note and hell if you can follow them to wherever they go so people don’t just vanish.
It’s impressive and somewhat concerning what people will pay for a name. Historic as it is Napster died long long ago
If the same letters can be reused I might try a junkyard. If not, maybe 3D printing and chrome paint?
What you might call a stateful NAT is really a 1-1 NAT, anything going out picks up an IP and anything retuned to that IP is routed back to the single address behind the NAT. Most home users a many to one source nat so their internal devices pick up a routable IP and multiple connections to a given dest are tracked by a source port map to route return traffic to the appropriate internal host.
Basically yes to what you said, but a port forward technically is a route map inbound to a mapped IP. You could have an ACL or firewall rule to control access to the NAT but in itself the forward isn’t a true firewall allow.
Same basic result but if you trace a packet into a router without a port forward it’ll be dropped before egress rather than being truly blocked. I think where some of the contention lies is that routing between private nets you have something like:
0.0.0.0/0 > 192.168.1.1 10.0.0.0/8 > 192.168.2.1
The more specific route would send everything for 10.x to the .2 route and it would be relayed as the routing tables dictate from that device. So a NAT in that case isn’t a filter.
From a routable address to non-route 1918 address as most would have from outside in though you can’t make that jump without a map (forward) into the local subnet.
So maybe more appropriate to say a NAT ‘can’ act as a firewall, but only by virtue of losing the route rather than blocking it.
I’m sure there’s something at the state level, found a local ref here. Seems to be one of those laws where it’s illegal if they already wanted a reason to mess with the driver.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/aitkin/latest/aitkin_mn/0-0-0-802
Around here they refer to it as ‘unreasonable acceleration’.
NAT in the sense used when people talk about at home is a source nat, or as we like to call it in the office space a hide address, everyone going to the adjacent net appears to be the same source IP and the system maintains a table of connections to correlate return traffic to.
The other direction though, if you where on that upstream net and tried to target traffic towards the SNAT address above the router has no idea where to send it to unless there’s a map to designate where incoming connections need to be sent on the other side of the NAT so it ends up being dropped. I suppose in theory it could try and send it to everyone in the local side net, but if you get multiple responses everything is going to get hosed up.
So from the perspective of session state initiation it can act as a firewall since without route maps it only will work from one side.
Assuming it’s not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall. Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet doesn’t do much, but the typical home router as most people think of it is creating a snat for multiple devices to reach out to the internet and without port forwarding effectively blocks off traffic from the outside in.
I rather like the notions of composting or just being planted in the dirt with a bunch of trees. Not sure on the rules or costs though.
Did they get doge efficiency updates installed?
They exist, if it gets to the point like with the Floyd protests you can bet Donnie won’t hesitate to point the military at the citizens, then things would get very interesting.
The guy beat you to it in 1996