I've only been given 1 free meal (by the manager). I just gave the entire difference as my tip. I was already going to spend the money, so why not make a random waiter happy.
The telephone companies seem to actively push for you to get rid of your land line. My monthly bill recently dropped $75 ($50 for local-only phone service + fees like 911), when I canceled my land line.
My 100mbit VDSL2 bonded internet line is $75, so it was a very noticeable monthly decrease. My ISP/Telco is Windstream in the eastern USA.
As someone who has carried a pocket knife for most of my life, I very rarely think of the knife as a weapon. When I was younger, me and my friends would throw knives at trees. Sometimes we would throw hatchets at trees. It's fun and very satisfying to finally stick the knife/hatchet.
Right. For example, in 2016, Shodan had sneakily infiltrated the NTP.org pool to harvest IPv6 IPs. The methods have obviously gotten more sophisticated and more prevalent since then.
The scenerio I commonly see is a dual-stack (IPv4 & IPv6) router blocking all unsolicited incoming IPv4 packets (because of NAT), while all IPv6 LAN hosts will unintentionally be globally accessible through the internet.
This is why I worry about more IPv6 deployment. Too many people are ignorantly relying on IPv4 NAT as a layer of protection.
> And by the way, nobody, noone forbade you from having explicit firewall rules denying anything from anywhere, not explicitly allowed. Just like it is done in a proper IPv4 configuration.
Sure, in a perfect world, migrating to IPv6 should be safe, but the default configuration on many ISP-supplied routers has no firewalling beyond what NAT offers.
I worry about the loss of the implicit firewall that NAT offers.
Network security audits of dual-stack networks far too often show practically no open ports on IPv4, because of NAT, while IPv6 exposes everything. The security through obscurity of the practically unscannable IPv6 address space is not a firewall.