No allies, eh? So that leaves exactly two places we could attack:
Antarctica, which is, of course, no one's ally or enemy, and isn't even neutral, not being a country at all. (Same goes for outer space, but I don't think ICBMs can get to the moon.)
And America.
The conservatives are right, Obama is going to destroy America! Or Antarctica! One of the two! Or maybe the moon! (Didn't he already bomb the moon? I forget how that war turned out, but I bet we didn't bother to send soldiers helmets for their space suits.)
Wait, duh, we've been looking at this all wrong. We've been assuming he will attack land. No, he's planning an attack on international waters!
He's a liberal, they're always for saving the environment, so he's going to bomb the big floating garbage continent out there.
We've always been at war with Ocean. We've never been at war with Luna.
It's even worse than that. Most of our 'enemies', the place we'd conceivably shoot missiles at, are much much closer to Russia than Kamchatka is to the US. The analogy is more if Russia shot a 'It's not nuclear, we promise' ICBM at, say, Guatemala.
Even assuming we had no problem with the Russia-Guatemala war, even if we had no problem with what the missile was supposed to do, we, um, might get slightly worried that an ICBM is barreling south 50 miles off our west coast. (Assuming it didn't go right over us!)
I want to know where the fuck we'd need to launch any intercontinental missiles.
Look, if we're willing to blow shit up, we should probably spend the time to get on the same damn continent as it.
I mean, that's just common courtesy.
The only ICBMs we need are as part of the increasingly surreal MAD theory. That's a slightly crazy thing that won't ever happen, but it at least makes some sense.
Everything else we can use our damn stealth bombers, because we don't need the ability to bomb them in 40 minutes or whatever after they've launched missiles at us.
Why would we need to let pearl harbor happen in order to get the US into the war?
Why would we need to swipe our card before punching in our PIN at an ATM?
Oh, sorry, thought we were asking random unrelated 'Why would we need to ?' questions.
I love the fact you've decided that a Wikipedia article that talks about whether or not we knew about the attack in advance is proof we knew about the attack in advance.
The idea we knew about the Pearl Harbor attack specifics and didn't do anything about it is idiotic. Why on earth would we not prep for an attack? It would still be a Japanese attack on the US even if we knew it was coming, and hence a justification for war.
I think you're just proved my point about idiotic conspiracy theories.
I can't even imagine what the actual theory here even is. So you assert the US knew that Japan was going to attack? And what? They decided not to protect Hawaii better so that...what, exactly?
'Hey, these guys we want to go to war with are going to have a surprise attack on us. Let's...um...leave the ships there so one of them can sink and stupidly come within a hair's-breathe of blocking the harbor off, crippling the war effort.'
'Why couldn't we just secretly prep a force to deal with them as soon as they appear in the sky? I mean, they still would have attacked us, and hence we'd still be at war with them. We can surprise their surprise attack! You know, the sort of cleverness we'll end up doing all the time later in the war, with fake tanks and troop movements and stuff.'
'Shut up, that's why! I want to sink a large fraction of our fleet! It's gotten too big!'
Hey, moron, 'knew in advance', aka, LIHOP, is a 9/11 conspiracy, but it's not '9/11 Truthers'.
The wikipedia link you want, the people I was talking about with the term 'TRUTHERS', is over here. See that link? 9/11 Truth movement?
I quote '"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.'.
Aka, truthers are 'made it happen on purpose', not 'let it happen on purpose'.(1)
They call themselves '9/11 Truthers', the organization that started all this is called '9/11 Truth', and I referred to them slightly dismissively as just 'Truthers'.
You want to discuss 'let it happen on purpose', you feel free. That's not what I, nor anyone else, (Including the people who call themselves that) are talking about when we talk about '9/11 Truthers' or the '9/11 Truth Movement'.
Making IPv6 a superset of IPv4 would provide very little benefit over the dual stack architecture: IPv4 systems still wouldn't be able to respond to IPv6 systems without a translator in the middle (in that case, a NAT)
Um, no. You don't need to 'network address translation' if the addresses were a subset.
You need protocol translation, but the addresses can simply be expanded to IPv6 or reduced to IPv4.
That's a damn fancy bridge, not a NAT. Speaks IPv4 on one side, speaks IPv6 on the other.
I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I wasn't suggesting any manner to reach IPv6-only addresses from IPv4, that would, indeed, require a NAT. I was suggesting a way to transport IPv4 over IPv6, to simple translate back and forth and let the IPv4 machine contact the IPv6 machines that have the IPv4 subset addresses. So entire sections of the internet could switch to IPv6 but, because they're using their IPv4 subset addresses, everyone can still get to them.
More to the point, you'd actually have a one-to-one mapping, so whether or not it's a 'NAT' is somewhat irrelevant. It wouldn't be a normal, broken-in-one-direction NAT. It doesn't have to keep any state, it doesn't have to protocol sniff, no one has to open ports in it, because it is translating identically back and forth. Anything it can't translate doesn't get through.
This is, incidentally, how IP was upgraded the first time, from single byte addressing to four byte. Machines simple downgraded the address if they were taking to someone who didn't understand the new protocol, so computers speaking single-byte IP could still speak to anyone else who had an address in that subset.
The problem, of course, that IPv6 wasn't designed that way, and, of course, it's much too late to add it. (You can easily say 'Yes, that's the new protocol', but all the routers won't attempt to translate.)
The dual stack architecture allows IPv4 to be deprecated and disabled when it's no longer useful.
Erm, it's pretty easy to 'deprecate and disable' IPv4. You, um, simply stop assigning IPv4 addresses.
Not that that's a good idea. There will always be some embedded device that can only speak IPv4. Under what I said they should have done, all you'd need to do is a) make sure it's hooked to a network that knows how to translate, and b) make sure whoever it's talking to, all the way on the other side of the internet, has one of the IPv4-subset IPv6 addresses. It can't access 99% of the new internet, only the subset ones, but the people running whatever service is accessed just buy subset addresses. It tries to speak to that IP, it is magically turned into IPv6 at the first router, and everyone lives happily ever after.
As opposed to the 'dual stack' universe, where at some point the lights go out on IPv4 and millions of consoles and refrigerators and DVD players and security systems stop being able to talk to anyone.
About your sister, she had a baby this morning. I haven't found out
whether it is a boy or a girl so I don't know if you are an aunt or uncle,
yet.
I made the joke a few time about not knowing if I was an aunt or an uncle a few times when my brother and sister-in-law were expecting and didn't know what it was.
I try to point this out every time the IPv6 discussion comes up, but way too many slashdotters have decided that IPv6 works the intelligent way, that is it is just an expansion of the address space, so that with the correct converters, you could speak IPv4 to a router, have it magically turn things into IPv6, and speak to, at least, the computers within the IPv4 subset.
I can't blame people for this assumption, it was my assumption too, and it would have been the sane way to design things.
If it actually worked the way people assume it worked, we'd all be transitioned over at this point, we'd all be using IPv6 routing on 99% of the internet, but still using the IPv4 subset addresses, with ISPs and other connection points 'upgrading' the protocol for devices that couldn't speak the new one.
And what we would be facing is the fact we've got to start assigning addresses that only other IPv6 devices can reach, and not the remaining 1% still speaking IPv4. A very small problem...1% of the internet (The people unable to upgrade to IPv6) would be unable to talk to another 1% of the internet. (The people being assigned IPv6-only addressing.)
This is, in no sense, how IPv6 actually works. IPv6, as I'm sure you know, but I will repeat for everyone who doesn't, is an entirely separate address space. Yes, you get a free address in it if you have an address in IPv4, but that is, in every sense, a 'different' address. At no point will any sort of translation from IPv4 to 'the same' IPv6 address happen.
This is why no one has switched over. Because it's not a switch over. If you want to contact 99% of the computer out there, you have to keep running IPv4. Not a 'IPv4 subset' address, which doesn't actually exist, you have to keep running the actual IPv4 stack and speaking IPv4.
In fact, as you said, the IETF keeps shooting down proposals to do any sort of conversion from IPv6 to IPv4.
For home consumers, more than likely any ISPs affected will just start doing some IPv6 to IPv4 translation for their old customers, and all new customers get IPv6 addresses.
And how the FUCK would that work?
IPv4 and IPv6 are entirely unrelated and separate. People think that IPv4 is a subet of IPv6, or that any sort of conversion back and forth is possible, are wrong.
If you assign people IPv6 addresses, and not IPv4, they will be totally unable to locate anything on the internet, unless you mangle all incoming DNS responses while you're at it to add AAAA records. (No, computers with only IPv6 will not look up a domain name, find only A records, and look at the 'IPv4 subset' of IPv6, because it does not work that way, because the IPv6 designers were actually 3rd graders in a special education class.)
And, of course, all you've got at the end is an immensely complicated NAT (A protocol changing NAT, even!) that has no advantages over local addresses. Hell, you might as well just assign them some IPX addresses and tunnel IPv4 over that, that at least would work correctly.
Seriously, people, there's a reason no one uses IPv6, and it's fuck-all to do with 'device support'. It's that IPv6 is an entirely different internet than IPv4, because of some of the stupidest design decisions imaginable.
Funny enough they are. And you can (could) contact a IPv4 system from an IPv6 system, but the IPv4 cannot send the answer to an IPv6 address.
No, you can't. Read the linked article above. Start reading at 'The IPv6 mess, part one: incompatibility'
IPV4 is not an actual subset of IPv6. You cannot sit there and speak IPv6, using a IPv4-subset address, and actually contact both IPv4 and IPv6 over it, because the system was designed by fucking morons. That would be the sane thing, that it works that way is the quite reasonable automatic assumption of people who look at it, but that's not how it works.
Instead, IPv4 and IPv6 are totally independent. If you're using IPv6, right now, you're speaking IPv6, over a tunnel, to the IPv6 area of the internet (Or you're lucky and your ISP is, but whatever.), and you're also speaking IPv4 from your computer to everywhere else. You're not speaking IPv4 from the 'edge' of your IPv6 universe onward, because you cannot contact an IPv4 address over IPv6, period. No, you can't do it using the 'mapping' of IPv4 into IPv6 address space, that mapping is entirely useless except to get a totally independent free IPv6 IP to start with.
No one is speaking to actual IPv4 addresses using IPv6. Sometimes they're managing to speaking to the IPv6 addresses that were automatically assigned based on IPv4 ownership, but those aren't the 'same' addresses, there's no translation going on.
It is two separate Internets, instead of two protocols over the same Internet. Designed by goddamn monkeys or something.
Ah, yes, every time I mention stupid Truther ideas I get someone saying 'it's easy to cherry pick dumb ideas'.
The point is, without these 'dumb ideas', there's no evidence at all. 90% of Truther mythology rests on the fact that the behavior of the WTC couldn't be 'normal', that explosives had to have brought the towers or WTC7 down.
They point to 'evidence' this happened, they point to all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense as reasons why this was done, but not a single one of them can explain why the hell 'murdering people to lie us into war' would, particularly, need the towers to collapse, and hence why it would be a reasonable idea to rigs things so they would. The best concept, like I said, is some sort of idiotic insurance scam or a way to cover up the theft of a billion dollars.
Once you remove all the bogus 'evidence' Truthers are using that demonstrate how airplanes couldn't have realize been flown into buildings, once you remove all the inherently stupid theories, Truthers have no evidence at all.
And neither Iran-Contra or Watergate were stupid. One of them was 'drug dealing to make money' (Which, duh, happens all the time, just usually not by the government.) and the other was 'wiring tapping your political opponent'. Both those things actually make sense.
For either of those to be an analogy to Truthers, Watergate would have to involve the theory that a dozen people were drugged and had RFID chips implanted in them to turn on and off wiretapping devices when they were near, and the mysterious 5 minute disappearances of all those people (While they were presumably implanted) was all the evidence we had of Watergate.
And then I run around saying 'Um, in the real world, when you illegally wiretap people, you run the wiretap all the time, as that's much easier. Do you have any evidence besides your idiotic RFID theory, which, incidentally, is totally bogus?'
Likewise, 'Um, in the real world, when you frame someone for a crime, it's much easier to actually commit the crime. If you frame them for flying airplanes into buildings, guess who you do that? You take those airplanes, and fly them into buildings. And you don't do incredibly stupid shit like rig the building in advance unless you have a really good reason it needs to come down. Um, duh.'
If you want to assert there's evidence of that happening, if there's evidence the government either flew the planes or recruited actual terrorists to do so, be my guest, but I've actually read quite a lot of Truther sites, and not only is that not one of the theory, all their theories, all the evidence that what they say is true, is based on the 'fact' that the buildings were not taken down purely by airplanes.
While I hate the no-fly list, I have to laugh at people complaining about dead people on the list.
Dead people who attempt to board a plane probably should be stopped. Either they're lying about who they are, or they're undead. Either way, they're a security risk.
In the US, it is a privilege to operate a motor vehicle. Cars or airplanes, and usually even motorized boats. We can bar, or remove this privilege, from people, without them committing a crime. hell, we can remove it from generally protected reasons, like disability. If you are blinded, for example, we will take away that privilege, whereas not only do you still have the right to vote, we're required to make accommodations to help enable you to vote.
You have the right to live anywhere you want in the US. Or, even, anywhere in the world. (Assuming the other country will take you.) You have the right to travel anywhere, you have the right to live anywhere, if you're a US citizen, you have the right to return to the US.
These rights can, of course, be taken away via due process of the law. For example, when you're imprisoned, you don't even have the right to pick which prison you're imprisoned in.
But there has to be a due process. The government decided to put a name on the list and demanding, under the law, that private companies not transport you is not constitutional.
Hell, them decided to use a government list of their own free will is not constitutional. Yes, private businesses can refuse you service for whatever reason (As long as it isn't a disallowed one, like race.), but a government issuing 'recommendations' that 95% of an industry not do business with you is, quite clearly, a conspiracy to deny you of your rights, even if it is voluntary on the part of the companies.
And the whole thing is, on top of it, a bill of attainder.
Um, no. Just because the US government can take something away doesn't mean it is not a right.
They can, as along as it's one of the rights they can't do anything to. (Like the protections outlined in the 1st amendment, which they can't take away.)
For example, 'liberty' is a right. It is not an enumerated right, but it is, none-the-less, a right. But they can take away.
They just have to use due process to take it away.
Likewise, 'freedom of moment' is a fairly important, old, and historically recognized right. Here's a history of it in the US.
It's been back and forth, but it's worth pointing out that US citizens even have the right to travel internationally, and it was found unconstitutional to ban us from traveling to Cuba. (We can't spend money there, but we can legally go there.)
Yes, we've started requiring licenses to operate vehicles, which, in a way, seriously limits this right to travel...but we've never required licenses to simply travel as a passenger before, making it impossible to travel. If they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private airplanes, they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private automobiles or private boats, rendering it practically impossible to reach most places, and actually physically impossible to reach some places.
Where is this "right to unrestricted travel" defined?
The goddamn Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
The whole Truthers movement is full of such stupidity I don't even know where to start, honestly.
Look, someone wants to premise a monstrous government conspiracy to fly airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (not) the White House, okay. The Bush administration is not exactly known for...truthfulness in reasons to go to war, and it's something I can conceive of Cheney setting up, although it would be hard to keep quiet.
What I can't conceive of is a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 (Why?), or them shipping explosives into the WTC to bring it down because, somehow, legally, someone isn't allowed to tear it down and wants to. Yeah, that's a sane plan...the US government, in the middle of their murder of thousands of people to fake a reason for a war, decided to participate in a microscopic billion dollar insurance scam. (Yes, a billion dollars to the US government is microscopic.)
Or, and here's a good one, the US government being so insanely fucking stupid as to fake the crash with missiles. And then reuse the planes elsewhere.
Oh, and they used, as the fall guys, real terrorists that they know are still alive somewhere, who can show up and disprove the entire story later. (As opposed to just, I dunno, making up terrorists. They control the damn 'terrorist databases'..no one would even notice if they just invented some people and stuck them in there.)
All this are actual truther beliefs.
What's more, they aren't some incidental truther beliefs, they are the actual 'evidence' that they use for the conspiracy. You can't actually remove the inherently stupid nonsense, because the 'fact' the building couldn't fall by itself 'is' the evidence.
If you're in the government and you do 911...well, first of all, the WTC is a few stupid target. If you have four planes, attack the pentagon, the white house, um...the statue of liberty, and somewhere else that Americans actually care about. Then you set up the signs of a fake terrorist operation, complete with fake terrorists. Then you actually fly the planes into the actual buildings, because the point isn't to 'destroy' anything, you nimrods. It's to 'be attacked'.
There's a sort of major brain-damage going on in many conspiracy theorists who never stop to ask themselves 'Does this 'fact' I've discovered even make sense if someone actually wanted to do what I'm claiming they wanted to do?'
I dunno, this is the same reason I have trouble with JFk assassination theories. Not because I don't think there wasn't a conspiracy to assassinate him..I actually do think that. Either the mob or James Jesus Angleton. (I flip back and forth, and sometimes I go with 'both'.)
I just think the damn conspiracy paid off Oswald who shot him from the Texas Book Depository, and for decade moronic conspiracy theorists have fucked around with asserting that the assassination 'couldn't have happened' in a way it clearly did.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think that's assault. That's not assault, assault is threatening people. It would be battery, and it's not that either!
The rule about what battery is very very lax, and can include things like simply touching others...but it always requires intent.
If you're walking down the road, and trip and fall against someone, that's not illegal in any sense. Neither is accidentally hitting them with an object you threw.
Now, if you were throwing it to miss, but to intimidate them, that can be assault. That is 'threatening' others. And if your intimidation attempt accidentally hit, it might be battery, just like swinging a baseball bat around to threaten someone and accidentally hitting them with it might be battery, depending on the law. But none of that applies here, where people were holding some sort of game and not taking notice of others.
Now, of course, causing harm to someone, even accidentally, can be a civil offense. Of course, as you pointed out, that would be hard to do for a foam ball.
Police, OTOH, are entirely capable of demanding that said group playing with foam balls in the street and hitting people accidentally move along, as that's textbook loitering. But the fact they could have given reasonable orders doesn't mean that can arrest people for random stuff that isn't illegal.
Actually, we do live in a police state, but it has not nothing to do with the actual police.
The executive branch of the government asserts the right to call people 'terrorist' and hold them without charge.
The executive branch holding people without having to prove any crimes they have supposedly committed is the definition of a police state. That's what that means.
Cops abusing their authority cannot a police state make. As long as they're 'abusing' their authority, as long as they are not actually allowed to do that, it's not a police state.
Neither does excessive laws. As long as they are actual laws the police assert people for, and those people get their day in court, it doesn't matter how oppressive the laws are, it is not a 'police state'.
Police states exist when the people doing the arresting (aka, imprisonment) of others do not have to submit to any legal oversight. When people are supposed to be able to be imprisoned simply because someone in the government decided to do so.
The US became one when Bush asserted the right to detain people without charge, and has continued to be one under Obama.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.
People who grow up in a religion, and grow up with other people in that religion, have the ability to hold two opinions at once. Aka, they believe the religion is true, but they don't really worry about every aspect of it, they tend to just ignore people violating the rules, etc. Sometimes this turns into actual willful blindness where entire societies conspire to ignore things.
Sometimes this blindness will 'lag behind' social norms, so you'll get old ladies frowning and gossiping in a rapidly changing society, but, in general, people who grew up in a religion interpret their religion to fit the world they live in, and just totally ignore everything else.
Whereas, OTOH, converts go crazy overboard, actually following every rule and whatnot. Rules that everyone else long decided were...you know...sorta guidelines.
Also, this is contagious. You get a few new converts, and they can sway people who've been in that religion all their life into radicalism. Without converts, radicalization is way down. With them, it can even extend to others.
Before anyone thinks the first is 'good thing' and the second a 'bad thing', this applies as much to, for example, selling all your worldly possession to help the poor as it does to stoning adulterers.
Slashdot Mirror
No allies, eh? So that leaves exactly two places we could attack:
Antarctica, which is, of course, no one's ally or enemy, and isn't even neutral, not being a country at all. (Same goes for outer space, but I don't think ICBMs can get to the moon.)
And America.
The conservatives are right, Obama is going to destroy America! Or Antarctica! One of the two! Or maybe the moon! (Didn't he already bomb the moon? I forget how that war turned out, but I bet we didn't bother to send soldiers helmets for their space suits.)
Wait, duh, we've been looking at this all wrong. We've been assuming he will attack land. No, he's planning an attack on international waters!
He's a liberal, they're always for saving the environment, so he's going to bomb the big floating garbage continent out there.
We've always been at war with Ocean. We've never been at war with Luna.
Erm, just Russia?
I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but China has ICBMs also, and wouldn't be too happy with us launching ICBMs.
It's even worse than that. Most of our 'enemies', the place we'd conceivably shoot missiles at, are much much closer to Russia than Kamchatka is to the US. The analogy is more if Russia shot a 'It's not nuclear, we promise' ICBM at, say, Guatemala.
Even assuming we had no problem with the Russia-Guatemala war, even if we had no problem with what the missile was supposed to do, we, um, might get slightly worried that an ICBM is barreling south 50 miles off our west coast. (Assuming it didn't go right over us!)
I want to know where the fuck we'd need to launch any intercontinental missiles.
Look, if we're willing to blow shit up, we should probably spend the time to get on the same damn continent as it.
I mean, that's just common courtesy.
The only ICBMs we need are as part of the increasingly surreal MAD theory. That's a slightly crazy thing that won't ever happen, but it at least makes some sense.
Everything else we can use our damn stealth bombers, because we don't need the ability to bomb them in 40 minutes or whatever after they've launched missiles at us.
Why would we need to let pearl harbor happen in order to get the US into the war?
Why would we need to swipe our card before punching in our PIN at an ATM?
Oh, sorry, thought we were asking random unrelated 'Why would we need to ?' questions.
I love the fact you've decided that a Wikipedia article that talks about whether or not we knew about the attack in advance is proof we knew about the attack in advance.
The idea we knew about the Pearl Harbor attack specifics and didn't do anything about it is idiotic. Why on earth would we not prep for an attack? It would still be a Japanese attack on the US even if we knew it was coming, and hence a justification for war.
I think you're just proved my point about idiotic conspiracy theories.
I can't even imagine what the actual theory here even is. So you assert the US knew that Japan was going to attack? And what? They decided not to protect Hawaii better so that...what, exactly?
'Hey, these guys we want to go to war with are going to have a surprise attack on us. Let's...um...leave the ships there so one of them can sink and stupidly come within a hair's-breathe of blocking the harbor off, crippling the war effort.'
'Why couldn't we just secretly prep a force to deal with them as soon as they appear in the sky? I mean, they still would have attacked us, and hence we'd still be at war with them. We can surprise their surprise attack! You know, the sort of cleverness we'll end up doing all the time later in the war, with fake tanks and troop movements and stuff.'
'Shut up, that's why! I want to sink a large fraction of our fleet! It's gotten too big!'
Hey, moron, 'knew in advance', aka, LIHOP, is a 9/11 conspiracy, but it's not '9/11 Truthers'.
The wikipedia link you want, the people I was talking about with the term 'TRUTHERS', is over here. See that link? 9/11 Truth movement?
I quote '"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.'.
Aka, truthers are 'made it happen on purpose', not 'let it happen on purpose'.(1)
They call themselves '9/11 Truthers', the organization that started all this is called '9/11 Truth', and I referred to them slightly dismissively as just 'Truthers'.
You want to discuss 'let it happen on purpose', you feel free. That's not what I, nor anyone else, (Including the people who call themselves that) are talking about when we talk about '9/11 Truthers' or the '9/11 Truth Movement'.
Making IPv6 a superset of IPv4 would provide very little benefit over the dual stack architecture: IPv4 systems still wouldn't be able to respond to IPv6 systems without a translator in the middle (in that case, a NAT)
Um, no. You don't need to 'network address translation' if the addresses were a subset.
You need protocol translation, but the addresses can simply be expanded to IPv6 or reduced to IPv4.
That's a damn fancy bridge, not a NAT. Speaks IPv4 on one side, speaks IPv6 on the other.
I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I wasn't suggesting any manner to reach IPv6-only addresses from IPv4, that would, indeed, require a NAT. I was suggesting a way to transport IPv4 over IPv6, to simple translate back and forth and let the IPv4 machine contact the IPv6 machines that have the IPv4 subset addresses. So entire sections of the internet could switch to IPv6 but, because they're using their IPv4 subset addresses, everyone can still get to them.
More to the point, you'd actually have a one-to-one mapping, so whether or not it's a 'NAT' is somewhat irrelevant. It wouldn't be a normal, broken-in-one-direction NAT. It doesn't have to keep any state, it doesn't have to protocol sniff, no one has to open ports in it, because it is translating identically back and forth. Anything it can't translate doesn't get through.
This is, incidentally, how IP was upgraded the first time, from single byte addressing to four byte. Machines simple downgraded the address if they were taking to someone who didn't understand the new protocol, so computers speaking single-byte IP could still speak to anyone else who had an address in that subset.
The problem, of course, that IPv6 wasn't designed that way, and, of course, it's much too late to add it. (You can easily say 'Yes, that's the new protocol', but all the routers won't attempt to translate.)
The dual stack architecture allows IPv4 to be deprecated and disabled when it's no longer useful.
Erm, it's pretty easy to 'deprecate and disable' IPv4. You, um, simply stop assigning IPv4 addresses.
Not that that's a good idea. There will always be some embedded device that can only speak IPv4. Under what I said they should have done, all you'd need to do is a) make sure it's hooked to a network that knows how to translate, and b) make sure whoever it's talking to, all the way on the other side of the internet, has one of the IPv4-subset IPv6 addresses. It can't access 99% of the new internet, only the subset ones, but the people running whatever service is accessed just buy subset addresses. It tries to speak to that IP, it is magically turned into IPv6 at the first router, and everyone lives happily ever after.
As opposed to the 'dual stack' universe, where at some point the lights go out on IPv4 and millions of consoles and refrigerators and DVD players and security systems stop being able to talk to anyone.
Stop trying to make excuses for their stupidity.
You mean you're allowed to let some random employee of another company type in your super-secret master password?
About your sister, she had a baby this morning. I haven't found out whether it is a boy or a girl so I don't know if you are an aunt or uncle, yet.
I made the joke a few time about not knowing if I was an aunt or an uncle a few times when my brother and sister-in-law were expecting and didn't know what it was.
No one seemed to get it, or remember this letter.
For the record, it was a boy, so I'm an uncle.
It's no use.
I try to point this out every time the IPv6 discussion comes up, but way too many slashdotters have decided that IPv6 works the intelligent way, that is it is just an expansion of the address space, so that with the correct converters, you could speak IPv4 to a router, have it magically turn things into IPv6, and speak to, at least, the computers within the IPv4 subset.
I can't blame people for this assumption, it was my assumption too, and it would have been the sane way to design things.
If it actually worked the way people assume it worked, we'd all be transitioned over at this point, we'd all be using IPv6 routing on 99% of the internet, but still using the IPv4 subset addresses, with ISPs and other connection points 'upgrading' the protocol for devices that couldn't speak the new one.
And what we would be facing is the fact we've got to start assigning addresses that only other IPv6 devices can reach, and not the remaining 1% still speaking IPv4. A very small problem...1% of the internet (The people unable to upgrade to IPv6) would be unable to talk to another 1% of the internet. (The people being assigned IPv6-only addressing.)
This is, in no sense, how IPv6 actually works. IPv6, as I'm sure you know, but I will repeat for everyone who doesn't, is an entirely separate address space. Yes, you get a free address in it if you have an address in IPv4, but that is, in every sense, a 'different' address. At no point will any sort of translation from IPv4 to 'the same' IPv6 address happen.
This is why no one has switched over. Because it's not a switch over. If you want to contact 99% of the computer out there, you have to keep running IPv4. Not a 'IPv4 subset' address, which doesn't actually exist, you have to keep running the actual IPv4 stack and speaking IPv4.
In fact, as you said, the IETF keeps shooting down proposals to do any sort of conversion from IPv6 to IPv4.
No it's not.
You might have that IPv6 address, but you are not connecting to slashdot using it in any way. Slashdot does not have IPv6 connectivity.
For home consumers, more than likely any ISPs affected will just start doing some IPv6 to IPv4 translation for their old customers, and all new customers get IPv6 addresses.
And how the FUCK would that work?
IPv4 and IPv6 are entirely unrelated and separate. People think that IPv4 is a subet of IPv6, or that any sort of conversion back and forth is possible, are wrong.
If you assign people IPv6 addresses, and not IPv4, they will be totally unable to locate anything on the internet, unless you mangle all incoming DNS responses while you're at it to add AAAA records. (No, computers with only IPv6 will not look up a domain name, find only A records, and look at the 'IPv4 subset' of IPv6, because it does not work that way, because the IPv6 designers were actually 3rd graders in a special education class.)
And, of course, all you've got at the end is an immensely complicated NAT (A protocol changing NAT, even!) that has no advantages over local addresses. Hell, you might as well just assign them some IPX addresses and tunnel IPv4 over that, that at least would work correctly.
Seriously, people, there's a reason no one uses IPv6, and it's fuck-all to do with 'device support'. It's that IPv6 is an entirely different internet than IPv4, because of some of the stupidest design decisions imaginable.
Funny enough they are. And you can (could) contact a IPv4 system from an IPv6 system, but the IPv4 cannot send the answer to an IPv6 address.
No, you can't. Read the linked article above. Start reading at 'The IPv6 mess, part one: incompatibility'
IPV4 is not an actual subset of IPv6. You cannot sit there and speak IPv6, using a IPv4-subset address, and actually contact both IPv4 and IPv6 over it, because the system was designed by fucking morons. That would be the sane thing, that it works that way is the quite reasonable automatic assumption of people who look at it, but that's not how it works.
Instead, IPv4 and IPv6 are totally independent. If you're using IPv6, right now, you're speaking IPv6, over a tunnel, to the IPv6 area of the internet (Or you're lucky and your ISP is, but whatever.), and you're also speaking IPv4 from your computer to everywhere else. You're not speaking IPv4 from the 'edge' of your IPv6 universe onward, because you cannot contact an IPv4 address over IPv6, period. No, you can't do it using the 'mapping' of IPv4 into IPv6 address space, that mapping is entirely useless except to get a totally independent free IPv6 IP to start with.
No one is speaking to actual IPv4 addresses using IPv6. Sometimes they're managing to speaking to the IPv6 addresses that were automatically assigned based on IPv4 ownership, but those aren't the 'same' addresses, there's no translation going on.
It is two separate Internets, instead of two protocols over the same Internet. Designed by goddamn monkeys or something.
Ah, yes, every time I mention stupid Truther ideas I get someone saying 'it's easy to cherry pick dumb ideas'.
The point is, without these 'dumb ideas', there's no evidence at all. 90% of Truther mythology rests on the fact that the behavior of the WTC couldn't be 'normal', that explosives had to have brought the towers or WTC7 down.
They point to 'evidence' this happened, they point to all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense as reasons why this was done, but not a single one of them can explain why the hell 'murdering people to lie us into war' would, particularly, need the towers to collapse, and hence why it would be a reasonable idea to rigs things so they would. The best concept, like I said, is some sort of idiotic insurance scam or a way to cover up the theft of a billion dollars.
Once you remove all the bogus 'evidence' Truthers are using that demonstrate how airplanes couldn't have realize been flown into buildings, once you remove all the inherently stupid theories, Truthers have no evidence at all.
And neither Iran-Contra or Watergate were stupid. One of them was 'drug dealing to make money' (Which, duh, happens all the time, just usually not by the government.) and the other was 'wiring tapping your political opponent'. Both those things actually make sense.
For either of those to be an analogy to Truthers, Watergate would have to involve the theory that a dozen people were drugged and had RFID chips implanted in them to turn on and off wiretapping devices when they were near, and the mysterious 5 minute disappearances of all those people (While they were presumably implanted) was all the evidence we had of Watergate.
And then I run around saying 'Um, in the real world, when you illegally wiretap people, you run the wiretap all the time, as that's much easier. Do you have any evidence besides your idiotic RFID theory, which, incidentally, is totally bogus?'
Likewise, 'Um, in the real world, when you frame someone for a crime, it's much easier to actually commit the crime. If you frame them for flying airplanes into buildings, guess who you do that? You take those airplanes, and fly them into buildings. And you don't do incredibly stupid shit like rig the building in advance unless you have a really good reason it needs to come down. Um, duh.'
If you want to assert there's evidence of that happening, if there's evidence the government either flew the planes or recruited actual terrorists to do so, be my guest, but I've actually read quite a lot of Truther sites, and not only is that not one of the theory, all their theories, all the evidence that what they say is true, is based on the 'fact' that the buildings were not taken down purely by airplanes.
While I hate the no-fly list, I have to laugh at people complaining about dead people on the list.
Dead people who attempt to board a plane probably should be stopped. Either they're lying about who they are, or they're undead. Either way, they're a security risk.
Keep the undead off our airplanes!
Correct.
In the US, it is a privilege to operate a motor vehicle. Cars or airplanes, and usually even motorized boats. We can bar, or remove this privilege, from people, without them committing a crime. hell, we can remove it from generally protected reasons, like disability. If you are blinded, for example, we will take away that privilege, whereas not only do you still have the right to vote, we're required to make accommodations to help enable you to vote.
However, is also a right. Called the freedom of movement.
You have the right to live anywhere you want in the US. Or, even, anywhere in the world. (Assuming the other country will take you.) You have the right to travel anywhere, you have the right to live anywhere, if you're a US citizen, you have the right to return to the US.
These rights can, of course, be taken away via due process of the law. For example, when you're imprisoned, you don't even have the right to pick which prison you're imprisoned in.
But there has to be a due process. The government decided to put a name on the list and demanding, under the law, that private companies not transport you is not constitutional.
Hell, them decided to use a government list of their own free will is not constitutional. Yes, private businesses can refuse you service for whatever reason (As long as it isn't a disallowed one, like race.), but a government issuing 'recommendations' that 95% of an industry not do business with you is, quite clearly, a conspiracy to deny you of your rights, even if it is voluntary on the part of the companies.
And the whole thing is, on top of it, a bill of attainder.
Um, no. Just because the US government can take something away doesn't mean it is not a right.
They can, as along as it's one of the rights they can't do anything to. (Like the protections outlined in the 1st amendment, which they can't take away.)
For example, 'liberty' is a right. It is not an enumerated right, but it is, none-the-less, a right. But they can take away.
They just have to use due process to take it away.
Likewise, 'freedom of moment' is a fairly important, old, and historically recognized right. Here's a history of it in the US.
It's been back and forth, but it's worth pointing out that US citizens even have the right to travel internationally, and it was found unconstitutional to ban us from traveling to Cuba. (We can't spend money there, but we can legally go there.)
Yes, we've started requiring licenses to operate vehicles, which, in a way, seriously limits this right to travel...but we've never required licenses to simply travel as a passenger before, making it impossible to travel. If they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private airplanes, they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private automobiles or private boats, rendering it practically impossible to reach most places, and actually physically impossible to reach some places.
Where is this "right to unrestricted travel" defined?
The goddamn Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
The whole Truthers movement is full of such stupidity I don't even know where to start, honestly.
Look, someone wants to premise a monstrous government conspiracy to fly airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (not) the White House, okay. The Bush administration is not exactly known for...truthfulness in reasons to go to war, and it's something I can conceive of Cheney setting up, although it would be hard to keep quiet.
What I can't conceive of is a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 (Why?), or them shipping explosives into the WTC to bring it down because, somehow, legally, someone isn't allowed to tear it down and wants to. Yeah, that's a sane plan...the US government, in the middle of their murder of thousands of people to fake a reason for a war, decided to participate in a microscopic billion dollar insurance scam. (Yes, a billion dollars to the US government is microscopic.)
Or, and here's a good one, the US government being so insanely fucking stupid as to fake the crash with missiles. And then reuse the planes elsewhere.
Oh, and they used, as the fall guys, real terrorists that they know are still alive somewhere, who can show up and disprove the entire story later. (As opposed to just, I dunno, making up terrorists. They control the damn 'terrorist databases'..no one would even notice if they just invented some people and stuck them in there.)
All this are actual truther beliefs.
What's more, they aren't some incidental truther beliefs, they are the actual 'evidence' that they use for the conspiracy. You can't actually remove the inherently stupid nonsense, because the 'fact' the building couldn't fall by itself 'is' the evidence.
If you're in the government and you do 911...well, first of all, the WTC is a few stupid target. If you have four planes, attack the pentagon, the white house, um...the statue of liberty, and somewhere else that Americans actually care about. Then you set up the signs of a fake terrorist operation, complete with fake terrorists. Then you actually fly the planes into the actual buildings, because the point isn't to 'destroy' anything, you nimrods. It's to 'be attacked'.
There's a sort of major brain-damage going on in many conspiracy theorists who never stop to ask themselves 'Does this 'fact' I've discovered even make sense if someone actually wanted to do what I'm claiming they wanted to do?'
I dunno, this is the same reason I have trouble with JFk assassination theories. Not because I don't think there wasn't a conspiracy to assassinate him..I actually do think that. Either the mob or James Jesus Angleton. (I flip back and forth, and sometimes I go with 'both'.)
I just think the damn conspiracy paid off Oswald who shot him from the Texas Book Depository, and for decade moronic conspiracy theorists have fucked around with asserting that the assassination 'couldn't have happened' in a way it clearly did.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think that's assault. That's not assault, assault is threatening people. It would be battery, and it's not that either!
The rule about what battery is very very lax, and can include things like simply touching others...but it always requires intent.
If you're walking down the road, and trip and fall against someone, that's not illegal in any sense. Neither is accidentally hitting them with an object you threw.
Now, if you were throwing it to miss, but to intimidate them, that can be assault. That is 'threatening' others. And if your intimidation attempt accidentally hit, it might be battery, just like swinging a baseball bat around to threaten someone and accidentally hitting them with it might be battery, depending on the law. But none of that applies here, where people were holding some sort of game and not taking notice of others.
Now, of course, causing harm to someone, even accidentally, can be a civil offense. Of course, as you pointed out, that would be hard to do for a foam ball.
Police, OTOH, are entirely capable of demanding that said group playing with foam balls in the street and hitting people accidentally move along, as that's textbook loitering. But the fact they could have given reasonable orders doesn't mean that can arrest people for random stuff that isn't illegal.
I saw a cop just blatantly run a stop sign the other day. Didn't even slow down.
Actually, we do live in a police state, but it has not nothing to do with the actual police.
The executive branch of the government asserts the right to call people 'terrorist' and hold them without charge.
The executive branch holding people without having to prove any crimes they have supposedly committed is the definition of a police state. That's what that means.
Cops abusing their authority cannot a police state make. As long as they're 'abusing' their authority, as long as they are not actually allowed to do that, it's not a police state.
Neither does excessive laws. As long as they are actual laws the police assert people for, and those people get their day in court, it doesn't matter how oppressive the laws are, it is not a 'police state'.
Police states exist when the people doing the arresting (aka, imprisonment) of others do not have to submit to any legal oversight. When people are supposed to be able to be imprisoned simply because someone in the government decided to do so.
The US became one when Bush asserted the right to detain people without charge, and has continued to be one under Obama.
Ah, yes, people throwing foam balls around on the street should certainly be subject to arrest.
Despite, of course, that not being illegal in any conceivable manner.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.
People who grow up in a religion, and grow up with other people in that religion, have the ability to hold two opinions at once. Aka, they believe the religion is true, but they don't really worry about every aspect of it, they tend to just ignore people violating the rules, etc. Sometimes this turns into actual willful blindness where entire societies conspire to ignore things.
Sometimes this blindness will 'lag behind' social norms, so you'll get old ladies frowning and gossiping in a rapidly changing society, but, in general, people who grew up in a religion interpret their religion to fit the world they live in, and just totally ignore everything else.
Whereas, OTOH, converts go crazy overboard, actually following every rule and whatnot. Rules that everyone else long decided were...you know...sorta guidelines.
Also, this is contagious. You get a few new converts, and they can sway people who've been in that religion all their life into radicalism. Without converts, radicalization is way down. With them, it can even extend to others.
Before anyone thinks the first is 'good thing' and the second a 'bad thing', this applies as much to, for example, selling all your worldly possession to help the poor as it does to stoning adulterers.
You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?
Uh, no, it had to do with assault.
Someone hits you in one side of the face, you turn so they can hit you in the other side, also.
Disagree all you want, but it wasn't about insults.