Counter argument: sometimes our memory of shows is rosier than reality. Take Looney Tunes, for example. Some of those original episodes made fun of mental illness, PTSD, even suicide.
In other cases a rebooted show is absolutely stellar, like BSG.
A static IP is actually not necessary, but what you need is a consistent identifier. For the server, that's typically a DNS address, but for clients and peer to peer networks there's other ways to identify devices, usually tied to an account or some other key kept on the device.
For centralised communications yes, you would need an always online server. For decentralised networks, you just need a sufficient amount of online peers, but each individual peer does not need to be always online.
Pretty much, yes. Even push notifications on cell phones work this way.
Route, yes. Manually. VPN is usually not necessary. In modern web-based services this is typically done with websockets, which are client-initiated (so the client address can change), and which allow two-way communication and typically only require a keepalive packet from the client every minute or so.
There's other reasons why universal addressing is not done - privacy, network segmentation, resiliency, security, etc. And while IPv6 proponents do like to claim that local networks wouldn't be strictly necessary (which is technically true), local networks will still be wanted by many. Tying this back to phone numbers - phone numbers work because there's an implicit trust in the telcos, and conversely there's built in central control. It also helps that it's only a very domain specific implementation - phone communication specifications don't change very often. On computer networks, a lot of work has been done to reduce the reliance on a central trust authority. Nowadays, DNS and SSL registries are pretty much the last bastion of such an authority, with a lot of research and work having gone into being able to safely communicate through untrusted layers: GPG, TOR, IPFS, TLS, etc.
Whoa, that's a sizeable edit to the post! Regardless the answer is pretty straightforward: your VOIP client (either the device if you have one or the software) is connected to a VOIP service which acts like a gateway for your client. Since the client initiated the connection to the gateway and is keeping it alive, you don't need to make any network changes. Once the connection is established, standard SIP call flows (you can Google that for flow diagrams) are followed.
So no, you router is not part of the cell service. The VOIP provider is part of a phone service that receives calls and routes them for you, just like the cell towers are part of a telephony provider that routes calls through the appropriate tower.
Laptops don't get a new IP address every time they switch from one AP to another in the same network either. Your cell phone will get a new IP address if it switches to a different cell network.
Sure they can. If you put a network behind a router they will share an egress/ingress IP. And there are certain high availability setups where computers share IPs in the same subnet for hot/standby failover.
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm arguing that old versions don't get new vulnerabilities. I'm saying that just because a CVE exists it does not necessarily make a system immediately vulnerable, because many CVEs rely on theoretical scenarios or specific attack vectors that are not exploitable in a hardened system or that have limited impact.
lemmyng @ lemmyng @lemmy.ca Posts 2Comments 507Joined 2 yr. ago
Or just request the desktop version.