And it will STILL find itself a non-conflicting IP address given a router announcement. One might even say it's a DYNAMIC IP address.
That does nothing to prevent legal accountability if you know the devices MAC address, you can log each and every contact with the outside world. It's not the legal accountability that's BS, it's the claim that DHCP is necessary for it or even that it exists under it.
Except that's not how it works. There is one tank and it has 5 gallons in it. It is not even theoretically possible that you will get 10 gallons. In the ISP case, you might in some cases theoretically be able to get the up-to speed, but you are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning as you win the big lottery jackpot.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require that the advertised up-to speed be something the average customer will actually see from time to time.
Sure, it can be done and IMHO, should be done. However, it's not fair to claim stock Android has no ability to handle dynamic addresses. And all of that about legal requirements was 100% grade A BS.
Yes, it absolutely is. It is a dirty hack allowing you to go around an ISP that's living in the last century. And done right, it's still better than NAT if you want to actually access your machines at home when you are out.
That is a form of throttling. They are knowingly selling a level of performance that will require upgrades for them to actually provide and then they're not doing the upgrades.
Would you tolerate a gas station selling you 10 gallons of gas when they know they only have 5 gallons left?
The right way is to get a/63 from your ISP and subnet it into 2/64s. Failing that, you can segregate using whitelist on the internal vlan and brouting based on ARP table.
I will concede that DHCPv6 might be a helpful tool given an ISP that can not or will not do the right thing and give you a/63.
Try to get an IPv4 allocation and THEN tell me how there was no impact. Back in the '90's, they were handing out public IPs like water. All you had to do is ask and say how many you want.
These days, good luck getting an allocation without submitting the opinion of 3 fortune tellers, a detailed justification and the results of your last 3 colonoscopies. And don't dare try to plan ahead so you can grow into the block you request.
It does support dynamic address assignment through router announcements, just like the IETF intended. DHCPv6 is a bolt-on for people who don't really understand v6 at all. The claims about identifying the source of traffic are just silly. Autoconfigured addresses are persistent and do identify a specific device, at least to the degree that DHCP can.
That isn't to say that Google shouldn't add support for DHCPv6 since people seem to really wanty it, but it's not like they force you to enter a static IP or something.
I agree there need to be limits on gathering licence plate information. The fact that fraud could be involved only strengthens that point.
But I do not believe that something being unlawful makes it any less likely to happen within the subset of people who are already committing a much more serious crime.
I agree with you there. The only reason I want it more cumbersome is that I do not trust police to actually not store the data or mis-use it to track innocent citizens even if it is actually illegal to do so.
sharing (duplicating and using) your license plate with another vehicle at the same time is unlawful
It IS, OMG! Robbing the jewelry store is one thing, but I draw the line at unlawfully attaching your tag to my car for the evening to frame you. After all, that's unlawful!
It remains a huge problem. Done manually, a cop can only call in so many plates in a day. Done automatically, every car that he is behind for any length of time gets called in.
If GPS data is added to the plate scans, a single car moving around will provide more useful data than a fixed reader and will be harder to evade.
I am left leaning but support gun rights and prefer a market solution when it can be adequately regulated. I prefer that regulations be justifiable and well thought out. I get modded down a lot for that.
Funny thing though, many of those people manage to be in good health without seeing a western doctor or taking a prescription medication for multiple decades of their lives. They end up spending less than a tenth of the money on healthcare that believers in western medicine do and for an equal outcome. So who is the real sucker?
No, that doesn't prove that homeopathy or crystal healing works, but it says a lot about how honest modern medicine is about the typical person's need for treatment.
IMHO, the only reasonable regulations here is to make sure the packages are clearly labeled as homeopathic and to make sure the ingredients and packaging are clean.
Pick the teleco that has committed the most fraud and other criminal activity (bill stuffing, false advertising, slamming, reneging on various voluntary agreements, etc) and nationalize it. Leave the others to compete as they do now.
If you really believe what you say, you should be fine with that as the national service will be relegated to a service of last resort and the rest will prosper.
Telco and cable routinely end up at the bottom when ranked for customer satisfaction. Apparently they don't have to be good to stay in business either.
The regulations aren't punishing the consumer. The part you are mising is that they were never actually getting what they were paying for, Now they are. In theory, if they were happy before, that tier of service will be offered and they can then pay for what they are actually getting. It should cost what they were paying before the regulation came in to effect.
Net effect: A better informed and less fraudulent market.
Surely you aren't against a less fraudulent market?!?
Slashdot Mirror
And it will STILL find itself a non-conflicting IP address given a router announcement. One might even say it's a DYNAMIC IP address.
That does nothing to prevent legal accountability if you know the devices MAC address, you can log each and every contact with the outside world. It's not the legal accountability that's BS, it's the claim that DHCP is necessary for it or even that it exists under it.
But it will use a constant MAC address which can be logged with the associated IP address.
Except that's not how it works. There is one tank and it has 5 gallons in it. It is not even theoretically possible that you will get 10 gallons. In the ISP case, you might in some cases theoretically be able to get the up-to speed, but you are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning as you win the big lottery jackpot.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require that the advertised up-to speed be something the average customer will actually see from time to time.
Sure, it can be done and IMHO, should be done. However, it's not fair to claim stock Android has no ability to handle dynamic addresses. And all of that about legal requirements was 100% grade A BS.
Yes, it absolutely is. It is a dirty hack allowing you to go around an ISP that's living in the last century. And done right, it's still better than NAT if you want to actually access your machines at home when you are out.
That is a form of throttling. They are knowingly selling a level of performance that will require upgrades for them to actually provide and then they're not doing the upgrades.
Would you tolerate a gas station selling you 10 gallons of gas when they know they only have 5 gallons left?
That is a pain as well in many places, but you do have the option of 6to4 or a tunnel to v6.
The right way is to get a /63 from your ISP and subnet it into 2 /64s. Failing that, you can segregate using whitelist on the internal vlan and brouting based on ARP table.
I will concede that DHCPv6 might be a helpful tool given an ISP that can not or will not do the right thing and give you a /63.
Actually the point is to give everyone a public IP, not necessarily static.
Any situation likely to benefit from subnets in a v6 network will already call for static assignments.
Sure you do. You just need to know Bob and Fred's MAC address. Same as for DHCP.
Try to get an IPv4 allocation and THEN tell me how there was no impact. Back in the '90's, they were handing out public IPs like water. All you had to do is ask and say how many you want.
These days, good luck getting an allocation without submitting the opinion of 3 fortune tellers, a detailed justification and the results of your last 3 colonoscopies. And don't dare try to plan ahead so you can grow into the block you request.
It does support dynamic address assignment through router announcements, just like the IETF intended. DHCPv6 is a bolt-on for people who don't really understand v6 at all. The claims about identifying the source of traffic are just silly. Autoconfigured addresses are persistent and do identify a specific device, at least to the degree that DHCP can.
That isn't to say that Google shouldn't add support for DHCPv6 since people seem to really wanty it, but it's not like they force you to enter a static IP or something.
I agree there need to be limits on gathering licence plate information. The fact that fraud could be involved only strengthens that point.
But I do not believe that something being unlawful makes it any less likely to happen within the subset of people who are already committing a much more serious crime.
I agree with you there. The only reason I want it more cumbersome is that I do not trust police to actually not store the data or mis-use it to track innocent citizens even if it is actually illegal to do so.
sharing (duplicating and using) your license plate with another vehicle at the same time is unlawful
It IS, OMG! Robbing the jewelry store is one thing, but I draw the line at unlawfully attaching your tag to my car for the evening to frame you. After all, that's unlawful!
I'm telling you the ship is sinkingh and you are obstinately claiming it doesn't matter because you re-painted the deck chairs.
So, one night I steal your plate, affix it to my car, and commit a crime. Either before sun-up or the next night, I put your plate back on your car.
Unfortunately, the camera that spotted a car matching your car's make/model/color and having your license plate on it didn't happen to catch the VIN.
It remains a huge problem. Done manually, a cop can only call in so many plates in a day. Done automatically, every car that he is behind for any length of time gets called in.
If GPS data is added to the plate scans, a single car moving around will provide more useful data than a fixed reader and will be harder to evade.
I am left leaning but support gun rights and prefer a market solution when it can be adequately regulated. I prefer that regulations be justifiable and well thought out. I get modded down a lot for that.
It is worth considering that there is also no scientific evidence that statins actually do anything to improve your health.
Funny thing though, many of those people manage to be in good health without seeing a western doctor or taking a prescription medication for multiple decades of their lives. They end up spending less than a tenth of the money on healthcare that believers in western medicine do and for an equal outcome. So who is the real sucker?
No, that doesn't prove that homeopathy or crystal healing works, but it says a lot about how honest modern medicine is about the typical person's need for treatment.
IMHO, the only reasonable regulations here is to make sure the packages are clearly labeled as homeopathic and to make sure the ingredients and packaging are clean.
Pick the teleco that has committed the most fraud and other criminal activity (bill stuffing, false advertising, slamming, reneging on various voluntary agreements, etc) and nationalize it. Leave the others to compete as they do now.
If you really believe what you say, you should be fine with that as the national service will be relegated to a service of last resort and the rest will prosper.
Telco and cable routinely end up at the bottom when ranked for customer satisfaction. Apparently they don't have to be good to stay in business either.
The regulations aren't punishing the consumer. The part you are mising is that they were never actually getting what they were paying for, Now they are. In theory, if they were happy before, that tier of service will be offered and they can then pay for what they are actually getting. It should cost what they were paying before the regulation came in to effect.
Net effect: A better informed and less fraudulent market.
Surely you aren't against a less fraudulent market?!?