China Deploys IPv9 Network

jeber writes "At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors. Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them. On small-scale trials in Shanghai's Changing and Jinshan Districts, IPv9 technology has proven stable and safe."

Comments

Re:So...

[xYoni69x]

Does that mean those spamming chinks are off of our internet?

Phrased as flamebait, but a good question. A large percentage of the spam comes from China. Certain spam filters, such as SpamPal, have options to reject all mail coming from China, Taiwan, Korea, Russia, and similarly spammy countries.

What do you do to count to 21?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop your pants?

Re:key word "control"

[mumblestheclown]

what part of "Well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Since you're such a genius literalist, how about you learn that the US Second Amendment is basically based on the VA (1776) and MA (1780) bills of rights, both of whose "right to bear arms" clauses are clearly tied to the notion of a "common defense." The VA BoR even specifically refers to those having the rights to bear arms being specially trained.

Of course, this all misses the larger picture still, which is that the framers recognized their own infallability and made provisions in the constitution for it to be a living changing document EITHER through interpretation or revision.

The constitution is not the secular equivalent of the fundamentalists literal bible handed down from on high, despite the fantasies of certain sloped forehead groups.

Off-Topic: Re:key word "control"

[issachar]

Off-Topic, but Karma is only a number, and I need to say this.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.