> My website is on Blogger, Google Sites, or Google App Engine. Am I eligible?
> As Google products, these sites already have similar DDoS protection to Project Shield. Your website would not need to be set up with Project Shield.
Wonder if that answer includes Compute Engine. Doubt it.
It would be interesting to try using App Engine to simply proxy traffic. I don't know enough about it to even know if it's technically feasible. I imagine the downsides would be many but it could be useful as a temporary measure while you're getting attacked.
Indeed, they have different hosts. akamai appears to host all of www.apple.com while the non-www server is hosted directly at 17.142.160.59 (primary), 17.178.96.59 (forwards for a lot of Apple domain names) or 17.172.224.47 (also forwards for a lot of domain names...). Oddly enough, only 17.178.96.59 has a proper certificate, but it's signed with Apple IST CA 2 - G1 from GeoTrust rather than VeriSign used everywhere else. They appear to have a misconfiguration for the other two servers configured in DNS to serve apple.com. Apple IST probably stands for Information Services and Technology group at Apple.
the redirect happens _after_ the certificate warning. to get to the redirect, you have to accept the self signed certificate first.
so it might still scare people away, and rightfully so: normal folks cannot distinguish a self signed certificate from a malicious used one f.e. used in phishing attempts.
If people keep pushing it with VPNs and censorship avoidance they'll just push Turkey to switch to a whitelisted Turkey-approved Internet and block everything else by default. It's much easier to maintain a whitelist of approved sites when you're censoring people than try to play whack-a-mole and block things that you don't like.
In what way? The US government has done nothing to restrict the growth of the Internet compared to other nations that force national firewalls and web-filtering proxies on their citizens.
I'm not so much striking down the "regulated" part, as I'm striking down the competitive one. In most places around the US coax and twisted pair lines (that were funded by the public purse in the first place) were sold to private companies at hilariously low rates to then milk the market in perpetuity while you are required to get permits to tear up roads and run your own network cable. And of course in most places that could happen, the cable company lobbies to prevent it.
So it isn't competitive at all. Though it is honestly hard to be competitive with infrastructure - how would you go about having multiple redundant private highways going to the same place just to maintain competition so that one road doesn't milk toll rates and let the quality degrade because they have a monopoly? Honestly, the latter is happening even now with public roads because without any competition or monetary motivation states just let their infrastructure crumble.
For one thing there is no 8GB Nexus 5. For another, anyone following Google's Nexus product lines knew that the $199 and $249 price points were obviously clearance prices to move the last bit of inventory out of the pipeline and make way for the Nexus 5.
It's silly you'd even argue this considering there is no other phone you can buy for $350 that is anywhere near as capable as the Nexus 5. It is competing with phones with an MSRP of over $500.
Let's compare what you're telling me with what I wrote:
> For one thing there is no 8GB Nexus 5.
"you'll notice that the 8GB 5 is difficult to purchase"
You seem to be agreeing with me.
> anyone following Google's Nexus product lines knew that the $199 and $249 price points were obviously clearance prices to move the last bit of inventory out of the pipeline
"I tend to agree that the 4s were priced to move, so it's not a great comparison"
It's very difficult to persuade someone that their views are faulty by only telling them things they've already stated themselves. Where are you trying to go with this?
I've always wondered what incentive counterfeiters even have for trying to copy these new bills. I have several $100 bills from around 20 years ago that I keep in a safe as an emergency reserve and they're still legal tender as far as I know. Why wouldn't counterfeiters just continue to counterfeit the older bills?
Most one hundred dollar bills are used overseas, where your old ones wouldn't be accepted in most places but a careful bank. Even in the USA, merchants will refuse bills that they aren't comfortable verifying.
I think that the anti counterfeiters are planning decades ahead with each revision.
Even the older Benjis are still very hard to counterfeit - all of these new changes are targeted almost exclusively at North Korea's advanced counterfeiting program.
This is probably a good reminder that you should never send anything in unencrypted e-mail that you wouldn't be willing to write on a postcard and send via USPS.
What would be nice is a package escrow service for one-off purchases here or there that are not time critical. You sell your item on eBay (or wherever) as normal, but the buyer pays the escrow service. Then when they confirm payment, you ship your item to the escrow service who then unpacks the item, verifies the contents are as described and functional, and then repacks it and ships it on to the buyer. Then they release the payment to you.
If the buyer tries to scam them by saying the item was not as described, the escrow service (presumably insured some way) would deal with them and you're out of the picture.
It would add a few days of delay to purchases, but for casual items already being sent UPS or Fedex Ground that aren't time critical it seems like it could add considerable piece of mind to small time sellers and buyers.
Wouldn't these guys be acting as an escrow service anyways? If they bother with the minimal process of photoing and tracking packages, it seems it would be much harder to claim fraud against them.
It doesn't interfere with your speakers when transmitting? I'm not sure if this is still the case, but my old AT&T phone would cause my speakers to go haywire when I was about to receive a phone call. Never experienced that with Verizon or Sprint.
