In the video as linked to in my other post, note in particular around 32 min, when this guy - whose business provides the best native consumer IPv6 connectivity in the UK - points out how awkward Google were with him.
Good lord, you've *got* to be kidding. Google has done more to push v6 than virtually any other content provider out there.
What has Google done to push IPv6, i.e. in what way has it demonstrated feature parity with IPv4 or benefits over IPv4? The fact that Google is considered at the forefront is a sign of how little/anyone/ has done in the public space - and it hasn't done more than any number of content providers, smaller ISPs (that's the way to do it!), etc which already are involved in IPv6.
But, to answer your question, why not start with the sixxs coolstuff? Note in particular that multicast is demonstrated, and that promotional IPv6 services are offered (newsgroups) even when the service could be provided as easily with IPv4. It's a very minor marketing effort, but it's still got substance to it much greater in proportion to size than Google has (hitherto) demonstrated.
What is this "choice" you're referring to? Because last I checked, users would have a choice: run dual-stack or don't.
The choice to use IPv4 or IPv6 (with extra features, where IPv6 can be so exploited) sites.
So now you're saying that, to fix this problem, we should expect those consumers to go upgrade their routers? It's just not gonna happen (outside the normal obsolescence cycle).
And how exactly are ISPs going to get Approved[tm] by Google if most of their customers have broken routers which ruin the fun once AAAA records are sent?
while simultaneously transparently enabling v6 for those users who have an ISP that's on the ball
But this will just mean a decrease in performance until *end-to-end* routing/bandwidth for IPv6 is as good as for IPv4. You might not get the n second timeout - the nature of the lameness just changes. An ISP doesn't either have good or bad IPv6 connectivity to the whole world!
unless content providers start populating the v6 web, it'll continue to go nowhere fast,
Unless they start populating it with something users want. Even if it's just feature parity combined with the vanity stage I mentioned a few posts up, where you're visiting either www.blah.com or www.legacy-ipv4.blah.com. But making it up to Google rather than the customers whether services in general are good enough or better on IPv6 is daft.
Try tackling the argument rather than ad hominem. To pick some well-knowns out of the pile, I'm particularly interested in evidence that, say, the WSJ in the US and the Guardian in Britain follow this policy... any source? If you're speaking on behalf of tabloids or quasi-tabloids, it's irrelevant as you're already producing a content-free paper, so I'm just interested to know where you're coming from.
The alternative is to break connectivity for (according to these folks).8% of users while those broken routers are fixed/replaced.
The Internet is regularly broken for.8% of users for a multitude of reasons. Expecting all ISPs on the planet to end up cooperating with a huge Google-borne list is more of a political and administrative burden than inconveniencing.8% of users.
In the next 3 or 4 years every site transitioning to IPv6 will need to do more than just add an IPv6 address one day and remove an IPv4 address at some point down the line. It's not just the issue the article seems to get its panties in a bother over, it's the more fundamental problem that bandwidth and routing for IPv6 is still fairly lame, and most people have to use tunnels. As such, even people (like myself) with working IPv6 connectivity end up with a shittier service when a site is IPv6 enabled. Regardless, even people with good IPv6 service from their ISPs might be using a router which breaks IPv6, and how will the ISP know about that? So a transition must occur in stages for any significant hoster:
1. Simultaneously run www.ipv6.site.com and www.site.com, where the latter of these has A records only. Advertise it for geeks, etc.
2. Watch feedback for your own and other sites, encourage manufacturers to fix their firmware, etc.
3. When it appears that IPv6 performance is decent for a good number of people, push people to try out the IPv6 version of the site.
4. Repeat 2 at some critical mass.
5. Create www.ipv4.site.com and add AAAA records to www.site.com. Give links to www.helponipv6orsomething.org for people having troubles, plus the well-advertised alternative of www.ipv4.site.com.
6. At some point in the future, remove www.ipv4.site.com.
7. At some point in the long distant future, remove A records.
Besides which, without v6 content, there is no reason to fix broken hardware.
The problem is people who think IPv6 is a waste of time (the crisis managers) vs technocrats who want to push it on people via some huge magic scheme which involves EVERYONE. All that's needed is a few bigger players to offer two alternative sites, as above, and to perhaps give perks for IPv6 - hopefully/using/ the advantages of IPv6, such as working multicasting for bandwidth-efficient live media streaming, or IPv6sec, or any number of things that are easier without NAT.
If the guys running the whitelist are willing to go through that effort, who cares? Does it solve the problem? Yes.
The problem is not the dearth of people willing to get paid to do Google's bidding - the problem is expecting every ISP on the planet to want to cooperate, and for such an administrative effort to scale that well.
So what do you think the real reason is? Either it's to fix v6 connectivity issues, or there's some other reason.
Information and control. I mean, if it's no bother, I'll volunteer to be the guy who aims to get a list of every ISP on the planet, an accurate database of addresses actually used by its customers, and an implied statement of willingness to submit data to my database (and to comply with various conditions) in return for me to provide Internet services. In fact, now I have all this information, it seems I'm duplicating a lot of the work of the IP registries... I'd sure be happy to help out with that too!
Probably because there's *still* some [sixxs.net] OSes that don't support DNS resolution over IPv6?
Irrelevant. The local router/gateway does the requesting - it could be an IPv6 DNS client and an IPv4 DNS server (although tbh I'm not quiet sure what's being whitelisted anyway here, as it's the ISP's DNS server that's going to be seen by the content provider). For tunneled machines, you're already requiring people to install special software, so you can also install an appropriate local proxy.
but this is a very well known problem amongst content providers mulling the idea of rolling out v6
The problem of ISPs distributing broken routers which manage to advertise a prefix which they aren't ever issued with? Perhaps you aren't sure yourself, since you haven't been able to name one router which exhibits the problem, but you're not making it clear what actually goes wrong and why the solution isn't to fix the problem (of distributing broken routers) rather than one huge bureaucratic bandaid.
And the whitelist *is* "negotiating with ISPs"...
Erm, yes, that's what I meant by, "negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6".
ie, they negotiate, the ISP sets up v6, and voila, they're on the whitelist. Problem solved.
If you regard negotiating with every ISP as "voila... problem solved", you are more engineer than the real world will allow for.
There are enough that it's noticeable, yes. Did you do the Google search? I bet you didn't. Maybe you should research the issue before dismissing it out of hand, eh?
I've already heard many people whine about IPv6 slowing down their machine. It's usually to do with a small amount of time wasted by failing at looking up an AAAA record before moving onto the A record, and nothing to do with finding an AAAA record and trying to access it. The AAAA lookup, as far as I can recally, happens when the system supports IPv6 rather than only when the system has a routable IPv6 address, which is daft.
(But, yes, I did a search about half an hour ago on my preferred search engine in case some new issue had exploded recently. Nope.)
You suggested that these provides had some ulterior motive for wanting this whitelist, and that the whole v6 thing was a coverup. That sounds pretty paranoid to me.
I suggested that the ISPs aren't being honest about why they want the whitelist. The fact that neither the guy interviewed in TFA (as I've shown) nor you (as I've shown) are giving a fully comprehensible explanation for the whitelist - even if there is one - suggests that there is not clarity about the reason for the whitelist.
Because the *vast* majority of DNS traffic is, and will continue to be for the near future, performed over v4, even if the client is v6 enabled.
If I'm Joe provider, I can return AAAA records if you're using my DNS server via IPv6, or A records if you're using it via IPv4. And, if I'm an ISP, I'll send the customer appropriate A-sending or AAAA-sending server addresses depending on how you're connecting, without you having to worry. Why will this not happen, unless you don't want it to? I need more information.
Or do you *really* think Google and NetFlix are just too stupid to realize how right you are?
I don't think Google or NetFlix are stupid - I think they're top performing businesses. Why would I therefore assume that their solution to a problem is the best solution for anyone but Google or NetFlix? "You must be wrong - Google has a solution and it's not the same as yours!" is fallacious, as I'm sure you can see.
Well, to start off with I made the mistake of reading the fine article:
"There's a pretty key reason for whitelisting," Temkin explains. "It's really, really easy for anyone using, for example, Hurricane Electric's tunneling to find that the IPv6 network becomes an island and that it is broken because they didn't update a tunnelYou end up with the customer having a bad experience. They never see the content or they only see the content after a 30-second wait."
The reason this whitelist is necessary is because many people are victims of routers that send out v6 router advertisements despite not having v6 connectivity
Which routers are these, and why is the correct procedure to maintain a massive whitelist (requiring ISP cooperation) rather than negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6 (requiring ISP cooperation)? What globally routable prefix are these routers advertising exactly, when they're not being assigned one?
Hell, all you have to do is Google for "ubuntu disable IPv6" to see how many people are suffering with this problem.
The problem of hundreds of sites advertising AAAA records which timeout? As someone who has had IPv6 connectivity for several years, I can tell you that hardly any sites offer AAAA records, so your reason doesn't wash - did you mean something else? Are you sure Ubuntu isn't suffering some problem?
So, please, quit being a paranoid jackass.
If you think I'm wrong, you could have said all that you've said without that sentence.
There are *very* good reasons to set up this whitelist, and TBH, I think it may be the only way to start getting sites to advertise AAAA records
Or, since we're breaking the universality of DNS, why don't we only respond with AAAA records if a nameserver's talking over IPv6?
...to plug it back in again, you get "a bad experience". Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more? Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the customer pays for the printing and shipping" - both writing and publishing are required for reader or advertiser to benefit, thus your allocation is meaningless.
Do you have evidence for this? Perhaps you'll want to qualify "all" first.
Then consider why, even if 60% of revenue comes from advertisers, your exercise is entirely different from the usual web model where 100% of revenue comes therefrom.
I'm still looking forward to in-depth investigative reports in the style of the highbrow dead tree media (and their online subscriber-only equivalents) from/just one/ online site which relies entirely on advertising revenue. I miss spending Sunday mornings reading a 10-page write-up from a random nonspecialist publication which has clearly taken the writer weeks and many resources to prepare... it is still possible, but most of the general publications that once offered this have moved to the tabloid on+offline model where I'm offered: (1) Re-wordings of press releases; (2) A tediously verbose review of some product; (3) Endless sophomoric political rants with poor copyediting, poor understanding of the system, and poor attempts to hide bias.
...and other media outlets will follow it. The fact that Murdoch has an agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't understand his business.
If you want to see what happens to the effort put into journalism in newspapers paid for by advertising alone, you have centuries of precedent. You have to ask yourself: who is your customer? The person who reads your paper, or the person who buys advertising space? To produce a newspaper/web site designed to increase the number of views/clicks of adverts is a very different skills from producing a newspaper/website designed to amass a loyal readership.
What is more, and especially with the consolidation of advertising brokers (Google, the Walmart elephant in the room), businesses are guaranteed to have dwindling revenues if they rely on advertising alone.
He couldn't have made it clear that he is an adult film producer. Also, mathematics and accounting are widely and wildly different, and it would take a state school system to confuse the two. Mathematics is the formal analysis of patterns; accounting is adding numbers up. While a mathematician would be able to improve the art of accountancy, he might never be a good accountant, just as the guy who builds the jet might make a poor pilot.
Your rule of thumb: if you have an operation which would be made easier with a numerical calculating machine, you are probably not doing mathematics.
Per subject, what would be a reasonable card for playing with GPGPU tech (under Win7)? I have been thinking about the GT220 or GT240, and while I am bombarded with reviews by Top Elite gamer sites indicating that these are low to mid range cards, as far as I can tell they basically do what the higher range cards do, but with fewer cores/less memory/slower clock. And the only significant thing I might be missing out on is double precision arithmetic.
Of course, I am likely to be wrong... what else would I not be able to play with GPGPU-wise by considering a $80ish card rather than a $1000 one?
You don't understand the difference between rival and non-rival goods, do you?
In the post to which you are responding, I've tried to illustrate that there is no such binary difference - my "understanding" is that the very notions of rival vs nonrival are over-simplifications. How could you read into my elaboration that I'm not recognising your faulty premise?
How can you share your invention and protect it from everyone, everywhere around the globe, who will copy it?
The same way I protect my car from being stolen, driven half way across the country and chopped up for parts before I wake in the morning - with a little bit of vigilance and a lot of reliance on the police and justice system (including the threat of police and justice system).
I only have to protect one house or piece of land.
And yet, without the government, someone with a couple more hired guns than you will take that house or piece of land from you. Your anarchistic dream that you somehow have the strength to protect your own land has been refuted by millennia of society where one powerful group of people always ends up providing monopoly protection (even if it's just via the threat of force).
I have to protect every copy of my art or invention from everyone who ever sees it.
It depends what your aim is. If your aim is to participate in a capitalist economy and make profit then, contrary to RIAA whinings, a pirated CD is not necessarily a lost sale, so all those torrents of your crappy album won't make a blind bit of difference to your bottom line. On the other hand, only one person has to steal your car and kill your dog once to make a significant difference to your life.
Because you're probably not harmed if someone takes your IP, and identification of culprit and restitution is usually possible either way, protection from the harm of IP "theft" is far simpler than protection from the harm of "theft" of tangible property. This is anathema to conventional Free Information/Software thinking, yet developed societies of the past few hundred years have all been more successful at controlling the spread of ideas and their expressions than at controlling the dealing in tangible property.
It is not 'merely' the constitutionalist viewpoint, it is the supreme law of the land, sorry
A Constitutionalist viewpoint is one which tries to understand the aims of the framers of the Constitution. Your sophistry is to imply that, because certain laws are interpreted by certain people to be within the letter of the Constitution, they must be within the original spirit of the Constitution. In the latter half of C20, the US moved from its own Constitutionalist interpretation of IP, based on the writings of the Framers, to one adopted in Europe based on the idea of intellectual property, whence Berne etc. Thus "limited times" became bastardised into "arbitrary time", for example. There is nothing Constitutionalist about current copyright law.
To be more clear, the legitimacy of governance derives from the agreement of the people being governed.
Agreement in what sense? Consensus or majority? Representative or direct? If enough people vote to have you killed, is it OK to kill you? You're being vague again.
"Less decisions by the masses" means more tyranny and less freedom, why would the masses agree to that?
Why would you not agree to the masses deciding to have you killed? I don't know. You tell me.
I think the main fallacy in your argument is your assumption that the purpose of property is to be able to say, "It's mine, and you can't touch it!" This childish basis explains why you think IP protection is impossible (after all, the aim is to stop anyone else listening to your record without your permission, right?) and is the foundation of precisely no extant society.
The moderators are angrily moderating to reflect their opinions, which is I guess par for the course, but here goes again...
I can protect my own tangible property.
You can protect intellectual property the same ay you protect tangible property: by using force to prevent others from making use of it.
If I sell my patent or copyrighted work, I still have it
Define "have". The thoughts which can be formed into the work still exist in your head, but you don't get to make or distribute any tangible expression of those thoughts. You can make that expression, just as you can take back something you've just sold, use it when the other guy isn't, or even use it when he is, if the item can be shared.
It takes FAR more government intervention to protect real property than it does intellectual 'property.'
It depends. It's a lot easier, say, for me to get away with stealing your car and selling it on than with selling bootleg copies of some work you have published. Ideas and their expressions have in the past 500 years been controlled far more than the exchange of tangibles, from the Holy Roman Empire's grants of privilegium to Soviet censorship. You may sell your ass, but don't advertise it as resembling your leader. Ideas are way easier to harmonise than *stuff*, though the idealistic student of every generation thinks otherwise.
But that is what intellectual property is: temporary monopoly granted for the advancement of the arts and sciences.
No, that's merely the Constitutionalist viewpoint of what IP should instead be. There is also the viewpoints that intellectual property is to be thought of as much like physical property as is possible, and - most importantly - for the benefit of the owner rather than the people.
If you want to philosophise, tangible property is also made up by people using legislation. You have a government granted monopoly on your tangible property: there's nothing in the laws of physics to say that it's yours.
You are correct that patents/copyrights exist for the benefit of the people, from a US Constitutionalist viewpoint. You the people have decided, via a representative democratic system, that the concept of intellectual property is more appropriate than the concept of temporary monopolies granted for the advancement of science and the useful arts.
Time for less decision by the masses and more philosophy for a sanely governed state, perhaps?
Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed, and in return they got paid money in a chain of payments which ended up with this company. That's how capitalism works - the free trade of commodities.
The problem lies with the original inventor, if you want: the guy who wanted to be paid for an idea, rather than giving it to the public domain. How many good ideas have you given to the public domain, reader?
Wow. For someone who probably uses the service and doesn't pay for it, you're sure griping a lot.
0. For someone who is going off on a rant based on a reasoned assumption, you sure aren't setting off on the right foot by starting the unjustified assumption that the poster uses Wikipedia;
1. You don't have to pay for or be a net consumer of something in order to criticise it - all you have to do is provide a reasonable explanation for the criticism. The alternative, that only the paying consumer should have a voice, is irrational and harmful;
2. All this said, maybe the poster has donated time and/or money to Wikipedia - you do realise it's produced by thousands of (sometimes even well-meaning) volunteers, right?
They don't serve ads (well, except to solict funds to keep their servers up and running),
So they don't, except when they do. At least regular adverts give you the opportunity to learn about some product. Huge banners telling you that the Child in Africa will die from not knowing all the Pokemon characters if you don't donate are quite pathetic.
When you pay for an SLA with Wikipedia (signed by someone with the authority to make such an agreement) then you have the right to throw rude accusations around.
I know America has such a macho culture that it's considered life-destroying to receive public criticism, but it's actually useful to be told that you're incompetent when you're incompetent. It's the first step to finding out where you've demonstrated incompetence, which is the precursor to fixing (i) your approach; (ii) the problem. Brushing the truth under the carpet by sounding the "I/Wikipedia admins have the right not to be offended!" klaxon solves nothing.
It's a well-known thing in the United Kingdom that British Telecom do not try very hard to crack down on certain premium rate call scams, even if they are illegal... now, it's certainly not BT's fault that some firm is using the telecommunications network to run a scam, but the huge profits directed towards the scammer/and/ British Telecom should be returned to the victim of a scam.
Similarly, I have no problem not considering Google responsible for someone trying to abuse its service... as long as they return all profits gained as a result of the abuse. If they keep one cent, they are complicit.
My price range wasn't anything - I was comparing with people who buy a $20/PSU/, and was indicating that that was a/bad/ idea;-).
Even my current home APC UPS, which was approaching $200 new and bought second-hand for half that, has been sitting there for a decade. It still gives me more time than I ever need during power problems, i.e. about 15 minutes, as I'm in an area which gets an outage of more than a few seconds no more than twice a decade.
I've actually yet to meet anyone whose ever done a successful restore of any significant amount of data from tape, beyond test restores of some files, without running into problems that prevented the restore from succeeding properly.
Are you saying that every single person you know who has backed up to tape has run into the problem of damage to the tape preventing complete restore? You, Sir, hang around incompetent admins, who either run damaged drives or store their tapes like clothes in the back of a damp closet. Or, worse, you're complaining because the heterogeneity of a stash of old tapes means you might not have the right software to read every archive.
Now, tape is cheaper, which encourages you to do multiple backups, on and off-site (you do perform multiple backups kept on and off-site, don't you?). Tape degrades gracefully - even if you can't read a bit of it, you're likely to be able to read the rest. HDDs tend to die in nastier ways. But, more importantly, tape *lasts*. Tell me, how many HDDs from 20+ years ago have you restored recently?
At least everyone with an operating brain can agree that everything is more reliable than backups to CD/DVD. And anyone with floppies from the '80s also knows that they're a lot more reliable than people give them credit for - though I expect manufacturing's gone down the shitter in the past decade.
Tapes do not last very long, wear and tear is huge, and organizations generally like to re-use old tapes, which makes matters even worse.
Right, incompetence. Every medium comes with advice on how often you should re-use it, and if you don't follow the advice, don't blame the medium.
Argh. Risk and cost assessments say that the closer you get to the outlet, the better your equipment should be. It's like people with $1000+ PCs who put in a $20 PSU. You're better off getting a brand name low end device which has been recently decommissioned.
Slashdot Mirror
In the video as linked to in my other post, note in particular around 32 min, when this guy - whose business provides the best native consumer IPv6 connectivity in the UK - points out how awkward Google were with him.
Good lord, you've *got* to be kidding. Google has done more to push v6 than virtually any other content provider out there.
What has Google done to push IPv6, i.e. in what way has it demonstrated feature parity with IPv4 or benefits over IPv4? The fact that Google is considered at the forefront is a sign of how little /anyone/ has done in the public space - and it hasn't done more than any number of content providers, smaller ISPs (that's the way to do it!), etc which already are involved in IPv6.
But, to answer your question, why not start with the sixxs coolstuff? Note in particular that multicast is demonstrated, and that promotional IPv6 services are offered (newsgroups) even when the service could be provided as easily with IPv4. It's a very minor marketing effort, but it's still got substance to it much greater in proportion to size than Google has (hitherto) demonstrated.
What is this "choice" you're referring to? Because last I checked, users would have a choice: run dual-stack or don't.
The choice to use IPv4 or IPv6 (with extra features, where IPv6 can be so exploited) sites.
So now you're saying that, to fix this problem, we should expect those consumers to go upgrade their routers? It's just not gonna happen (outside the normal obsolescence cycle).
And how exactly are ISPs going to get Approved[tm] by Google if most of their customers have broken routers which ruin the fun once AAAA records are sent?
while simultaneously transparently enabling v6 for those users who have an ISP that's on the ball
But this will just mean a decrease in performance until *end-to-end* routing/bandwidth for IPv6 is as good as for IPv4. You might not get the n second timeout - the nature of the lameness just changes. An ISP doesn't either have good or bad IPv6 connectivity to the whole world!
unless content providers start populating the v6 web, it'll continue to go nowhere fast,
Unless they start populating it with something users want. Even if it's just feature parity combined with the vanity stage I mentioned a few posts up, where you're visiting either www.blah.com or www.legacy-ipv4.blah.com. But making it up to Google rather than the customers whether services in general are good enough or better on IPv6 is daft.
Try tackling the argument rather than ad hominem. To pick some well-knowns out of the pile, I'm particularly interested in evidence that, say, the WSJ in the US and the Guardian in Britain follow this policy... any source? If you're speaking on behalf of tabloids or quasi-tabloids, it's irrelevant as you're already producing a content-free paper, so I'm just interested to know where you're coming from.
The alternative is to break connectivity for (according to these folks) .8% of users while those broken routers are fixed/replaced.
The Internet is regularly broken for .8% of users for a multitude of reasons. Expecting all ISPs on the planet to end up cooperating with a huge Google-borne list is more of a political and administrative burden than inconveniencing .8% of users.
In the next 3 or 4 years every site transitioning to IPv6 will need to do more than just add an IPv6 address one day and remove an IPv4 address at some point down the line. It's not just the issue the article seems to get its panties in a bother over, it's the more fundamental problem that bandwidth and routing for IPv6 is still fairly lame, and most people have to use tunnels. As such, even people (like myself) with working IPv6 connectivity end up with a shittier service when a site is IPv6 enabled. Regardless, even people with good IPv6 service from their ISPs might be using a router which breaks IPv6, and how will the ISP know about that? So a transition must occur in stages for any significant hoster:
1. Simultaneously run www.ipv6.site.com and www.site.com, where the latter of these has A records only. Advertise it for geeks, etc.
2. Watch feedback for your own and other sites, encourage manufacturers to fix their firmware, etc.
3. When it appears that IPv6 performance is decent for a good number of people, push people to try out the IPv6 version of the site.
4. Repeat 2 at some critical mass.
5. Create www.ipv4.site.com and add AAAA records to www.site.com. Give links to www.helponipv6orsomething.org for people having troubles, plus the well-advertised alternative of www.ipv4.site.com.
6. At some point in the future, remove www.ipv4.site.com.
7. At some point in the long distant future, remove A records.
Besides which, without v6 content, there is no reason to fix broken hardware.
The problem is people who think IPv6 is a waste of time (the crisis managers) vs technocrats who want to push it on people via some huge magic scheme which involves EVERYONE. All that's needed is a few bigger players to offer two alternative sites, as above, and to perhaps give perks for IPv6 - hopefully /using/ the advantages of IPv6, such as working multicasting for bandwidth-efficient live media streaming, or IPv6sec, or any number of things that are easier without NAT.
If the guys running the whitelist are willing to go through that effort, who cares? Does it solve the problem? Yes.
The problem is not the dearth of people willing to get paid to do Google's bidding - the problem is expecting every ISP on the planet to want to cooperate, and for such an administrative effort to scale that well.
So what do you think the real reason is? Either it's to fix v6 connectivity issues, or there's some other reason.
Information and control. I mean, if it's no bother, I'll volunteer to be the guy who aims to get a list of every ISP on the planet, an accurate database of addresses actually used by its customers, and an implied statement of willingness to submit data to my database (and to comply with various conditions) in return for me to provide Internet services. In fact, now I have all this information, it seems I'm duplicating a lot of the work of the IP registries... I'd sure be happy to help out with that too!
Probably because there's *still* some [sixxs.net] OSes that don't support DNS resolution over IPv6?
Irrelevant. The local router/gateway does the requesting - it could be an IPv6 DNS client and an IPv4 DNS server (although tbh I'm not quiet sure what's being whitelisted anyway here, as it's the ISP's DNS server that's going to be seen by the content provider). For tunneled machines, you're already requiring people to install special software, so you can also install an appropriate local proxy.
but this is a very well known problem amongst content providers mulling the idea of rolling out v6
The problem of ISPs distributing broken routers which manage to advertise a prefix which they aren't ever issued with? Perhaps you aren't sure yourself, since you haven't been able to name one router which exhibits the problem, but you're not making it clear what actually goes wrong and why the solution isn't to fix the problem (of distributing broken routers) rather than one huge bureaucratic bandaid.
And the whitelist *is* "negotiating with ISPs"...
Erm, yes, that's what I meant by, "negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6".
ie, they negotiate, the ISP sets up v6, and voila, they're on the whitelist. Problem solved.
If you regard negotiating with every ISP as "voila... problem solved", you are more engineer than the real world will allow for.
There are enough that it's noticeable, yes. Did you do the Google search? I bet you didn't. Maybe you should research the issue before dismissing it out of hand, eh?
I've already heard many people whine about IPv6 slowing down their machine. It's usually to do with a small amount of time wasted by failing at looking up an AAAA record before moving onto the A record, and nothing to do with finding an AAAA record and trying to access it. The AAAA lookup, as far as I can recally, happens when the system supports IPv6 rather than only when the system has a routable IPv6 address, which is daft.
(But, yes, I did a search about half an hour ago on my preferred search engine in case some new issue had exploded recently. Nope.)
You suggested that these provides had some ulterior motive for wanting this whitelist, and that the whole v6 thing was a coverup. That sounds pretty paranoid to me.
I suggested that the ISPs aren't being honest about why they want the whitelist. The fact that neither the guy interviewed in TFA (as I've shown) nor you (as I've shown) are giving a fully comprehensible explanation for the whitelist - even if there is one - suggests that there is not clarity about the reason for the whitelist.
Because the *vast* majority of DNS traffic is, and will continue to be for the near future, performed over v4, even if the client is v6 enabled.
If I'm Joe provider, I can return AAAA records if you're using my DNS server via IPv6, or A records if you're using it via IPv4. And, if I'm an ISP, I'll send the customer appropriate A-sending or AAAA-sending server addresses depending on how you're connecting, without you having to worry. Why will this not happen, unless you don't want it to? I need more information.
Or do you *really* think Google and NetFlix are just too stupid to realize how right you are?
I don't think Google or NetFlix are stupid - I think they're top performing businesses. Why would I therefore assume that their solution to a problem is the best solution for anyone but Google or NetFlix? "You must be wrong - Google has a solution and it's not the same as yours!" is fallacious, as I'm sure you can see.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Well, to start off with I made the mistake of reading the fine article:
"There's a pretty key reason for whitelisting," Temkin explains. "It's really, really easy for anyone using, for example, Hurricane Electric's tunneling to find that the IPv6 network becomes an island and that it is broken because they didn't update a tunnelYou end up with the customer having a bad experience. They never see the content or they only see the content after a 30-second wait."
The reason this whitelist is necessary is because many people are victims of routers that send out v6 router advertisements despite not having v6 connectivity
Which routers are these, and why is the correct procedure to maintain a massive whitelist (requiring ISP cooperation) rather than negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6 (requiring ISP cooperation)? What globally routable prefix are these routers advertising exactly, when they're not being assigned one?
Hell, all you have to do is Google for "ubuntu disable IPv6" to see how many people are suffering with this problem.
The problem of hundreds of sites advertising AAAA records which timeout? As someone who has had IPv6 connectivity for several years, I can tell you that hardly any sites offer AAAA records, so your reason doesn't wash - did you mean something else? Are you sure Ubuntu isn't suffering some problem?
So, please, quit being a paranoid jackass.
If you think I'm wrong, you could have said all that you've said without that sentence.
There are *very* good reasons to set up this whitelist, and TBH, I think it may be the only way to start getting sites to advertise AAAA records
Or, since we're breaking the universality of DNS, why don't we only respond with AAAA records if a nameserver's talking over IPv6?
...to plug it back in again, you get "a bad experience". Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more? Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the customer pays for the printing and shipping" - both writing and publishing are required for reader or advertiser to benefit, thus your allocation is meaningless.
So, which papers, and during which years?
Do you have evidence for this? Perhaps you'll want to qualify "all" first.
Then consider why, even if 60% of revenue comes from advertisers, your exercise is entirely different from the usual web model where 100% of revenue comes therefrom.
I'm still looking forward to in-depth investigative reports in the style of the highbrow dead tree media (and their online subscriber-only equivalents) from /just one/ online site which relies entirely on advertising revenue. I miss spending Sunday mornings reading a 10-page write-up from a random nonspecialist publication which has clearly taken the writer weeks and many resources to prepare... it is still possible, but most of the general publications that once offered this have moved to the tabloid on+offline model where I'm offered:
(1) Re-wordings of press releases;
(2) A tediously verbose review of some product;
(3) Endless sophomoric political rants with poor copyediting, poor understanding of the system, and poor attempts to hide bias.
...and other media outlets will follow it. The fact that Murdoch has an agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't understand his business.
If you want to see what happens to the effort put into journalism in newspapers paid for by advertising alone, you have centuries of precedent. You have to ask yourself: who is your customer? The person who reads your paper, or the person who buys advertising space? To produce a newspaper/web site designed to increase the number of views/clicks of adverts is a very different skills from producing a newspaper/website designed to amass a loyal readership.
What is more, and especially with the consolidation of advertising brokers (Google, the Walmart elephant in the room), businesses are guaranteed to have dwindling revenues if they rely on advertising alone.
He couldn't have made it clear that he is an adult film producer. Also, mathematics and accounting are widely and wildly different, and it would take a state school system to confuse the two. Mathematics is the formal analysis of patterns; accounting is adding numbers up. While a mathematician would be able to improve the art of accountancy, he might never be a good accountant, just as the guy who builds the jet might make a poor pilot.
Your rule of thumb: if you have an operation which would be made easier with a numerical calculating machine, you are probably not doing mathematics.
Per subject, what would be a reasonable card for playing with GPGPU tech (under Win7)? I have been thinking about the GT220 or GT240, and while I am bombarded with reviews by Top Elite gamer sites indicating that these are low to mid range cards, as far as I can tell they basically do what the higher range cards do, but with fewer cores/less memory/slower clock. And the only significant thing I might be missing out on is double precision arithmetic.
Of course, I am likely to be wrong... what else would I not be able to play with GPGPU-wise by considering a $80ish card rather than a $1000 one?
You don't understand the difference between rival and non-rival goods, do you?
In the post to which you are responding, I've tried to illustrate that there is no such binary difference - my "understanding" is that the very notions of rival vs nonrival are over-simplifications. How could you read into my elaboration that I'm not recognising your faulty premise?
How can you share your invention and protect it from everyone, everywhere around the globe, who will copy it?
The same way I protect my car from being stolen, driven half way across the country and chopped up for parts before I wake in the morning - with a little bit of vigilance and a lot of reliance on the police and justice system (including the threat of police and justice system).
I only have to protect one house or piece of land.
And yet, without the government, someone with a couple more hired guns than you will take that house or piece of land from you. Your anarchistic dream that you somehow have the strength to protect your own land has been refuted by millennia of society where one powerful group of people always ends up providing monopoly protection (even if it's just via the threat of force).
I have to protect every copy of my art or invention from everyone who ever sees it.
It depends what your aim is. If your aim is to participate in a capitalist economy and make profit then, contrary to RIAA whinings, a pirated CD is not necessarily a lost sale, so all those torrents of your crappy album won't make a blind bit of difference to your bottom line. On the other hand, only one person has to steal your car and kill your dog once to make a significant difference to your life.
Because you're probably not harmed if someone takes your IP, and identification of culprit and restitution is usually possible either way, protection from the harm of IP "theft" is far simpler than protection from the harm of "theft" of tangible property. This is anathema to conventional Free Information/Software thinking, yet developed societies of the past few hundred years have all been more successful at controlling the spread of ideas and their expressions than at controlling the dealing in tangible property.
It is not 'merely' the constitutionalist viewpoint, it is the supreme law of the land, sorry
A Constitutionalist viewpoint is one which tries to understand the aims of the framers of the Constitution. Your sophistry is to imply that, because certain laws are interpreted by certain people to be within the letter of the Constitution, they must be within the original spirit of the Constitution. In the latter half of C20, the US moved from its own Constitutionalist interpretation of IP, based on the writings of the Framers, to one adopted in Europe based on the idea of intellectual property, whence Berne etc. Thus "limited times" became bastardised into "arbitrary time", for example. There is nothing Constitutionalist about current copyright law.
To be more clear, the legitimacy of governance derives from the agreement of the people being governed.
Agreement in what sense? Consensus or majority? Representative or direct? If enough people vote to have you killed, is it OK to kill you? You're being vague again.
"Less decisions by the masses" means more tyranny and less freedom, why would the masses agree to that?
Why would you not agree to the masses deciding to have you killed? I don't know. You tell me.
I think the main fallacy in your argument is your assumption that the purpose of property is to be able to say, "It's mine, and you can't touch it!" This childish basis explains why you think IP protection is impossible (after all, the aim is to stop anyone else listening to your record without your permission, right?) and is the foundation of precisely no extant society.
You are
The moderators are angrily moderating to reflect their opinions, which is I guess par for the course, but here goes again...
I can protect my own tangible property.
You can protect intellectual property the same ay you protect tangible property: by using force to prevent others from making use of it.
If I sell my patent or copyrighted work, I still have it
Define "have". The thoughts which can be formed into the work still exist in your head, but you don't get to make or distribute any tangible expression of those thoughts. You can make that expression, just as you can take back something you've just sold, use it when the other guy isn't, or even use it when he is, if the item can be shared.
It takes FAR more government intervention to protect real property than it does intellectual 'property.'
It depends. It's a lot easier, say, for me to get away with stealing your car and selling it on than with selling bootleg copies of some work you have published. Ideas and their expressions have in the past 500 years been controlled far more than the exchange of tangibles, from the Holy Roman Empire's grants of privilegium to Soviet censorship. You may sell your ass, but don't advertise it as resembling your leader. Ideas are way easier to harmonise than *stuff*, though the idealistic student of every generation thinks otherwise.
But that is what intellectual property is: temporary monopoly granted for the advancement of the arts and sciences.
No, that's merely the Constitutionalist viewpoint of what IP should instead be. There is also the viewpoints that intellectual property is to be thought of as much like physical property as is possible, and - most importantly - for the benefit of the owner rather than the people.
Governance derives from the masses.
I don't get this. What are you trying to say?
If you want to philosophise, tangible property is also made up by people using legislation. You have a government granted monopoly on your tangible property: there's nothing in the laws of physics to say that it's yours.
You are correct that patents/copyrights exist for the benefit of the people, from a US Constitutionalist viewpoint. You the people have decided, via a representative democratic system, that the concept of intellectual property is more appropriate than the concept of temporary monopolies granted for the advancement of science and the useful arts.
Time for less decision by the masses and more philosophy for a sanely governed state, perhaps?
Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed, and in return they got paid money in a chain of payments which ended up with this company. That's how capitalism works - the free trade of commodities.
The problem lies with the original inventor, if you want: the guy who wanted to be paid for an idea, rather than giving it to the public domain. How many good ideas have you given to the public domain, reader?
Wow. For someone who probably uses the service and doesn't pay for it, you're sure griping a lot.
0. For someone who is going off on a rant based on a reasoned assumption, you sure aren't setting off on the right foot by starting the unjustified assumption that the poster uses Wikipedia;
1. You don't have to pay for or be a net consumer of something in order to criticise it - all you have to do is provide a reasonable explanation for the criticism. The alternative, that only the paying consumer should have a voice, is irrational and harmful;
2. All this said, maybe the poster has donated time and/or money to Wikipedia - you do realise it's produced by thousands of (sometimes even well-meaning) volunteers, right?
They don't serve ads (well, except to solict funds to keep their servers up and running),
So they don't, except when they do. At least regular adverts give you the opportunity to learn about some product. Huge banners telling you that the Child in Africa will die from not knowing all the Pokemon characters if you don't donate are quite pathetic.
When you pay for an SLA with Wikipedia (signed by someone with the authority to make such an agreement) then you have the right to throw rude accusations around.
I know America has such a macho culture that it's considered life-destroying to receive public criticism, but it's actually useful to be told that you're incompetent when you're incompetent. It's the first step to finding out where you've demonstrated incompetence, which is the precursor to fixing (i) your approach; (ii) the problem. Brushing the truth under the carpet by sounding the "I/Wikipedia admins have the right not to be offended!" klaxon solves nothing.
It's a well-known thing in the United Kingdom that British Telecom do not try very hard to crack down on certain premium rate call scams, even if they are illegal... now, it's certainly not BT's fault that some firm is using the telecommunications network to run a scam, but the huge profits directed towards the scammer /and/ British Telecom should be returned to the victim of a scam.
Similarly, I have no problem not considering Google responsible for someone trying to abuse its service... as long as they return all profits gained as a result of the abuse. If they keep one cent, they are complicit.
...was that there's always someone who ends up controlling the flow of information, so that someone might as well be you.
Slap a familiar [UK] logo on a Wintel
If your entire date field takes more than 1 byte, you're doing something wrong.
[...]
--
Yes, I am God. [slashdot.org]
Ah, Young Earth Creationists today...
Thought reading devices are the second most hyped technology I've ever read about.
(As quantum computing is the second most hyped area of computer science.
(Do thoughts exist before or after your consciousness has observed them?)
)
My price range wasn't anything - I was comparing with people who buy a $20 /PSU/, and was indicating that that was a /bad/ idea ;-).
Even my current home APC UPS, which was approaching $200 new and bought second-hand for half that, has been sitting there for a decade. It still gives me more time than I ever need during power problems, i.e. about 15 minutes, as I'm in an area which gets an outage of more than a few seconds no more than twice a decade.
I've actually yet to meet anyone whose ever done a successful restore of any significant amount of data from tape, beyond test restores of some files, without running into problems that prevented the restore from succeeding properly.
Are you saying that every single person you know who has backed up to tape has run into the problem of damage to the tape preventing complete restore? You, Sir, hang around incompetent admins, who either run damaged drives or store their tapes like clothes in the back of a damp closet. Or, worse, you're complaining because the heterogeneity of a stash of old tapes means you might not have the right software to read every archive.
Now, tape is cheaper, which encourages you to do multiple backups, on and off-site (you do perform multiple backups kept on and off-site, don't you?). Tape degrades gracefully - even if you can't read a bit of it, you're likely to be able to read the rest. HDDs tend to die in nastier ways. But, more importantly, tape *lasts*. Tell me, how many HDDs from 20+ years ago have you restored recently?
At least everyone with an operating brain can agree that everything is more reliable than backups to CD/DVD. And anyone with floppies from the '80s also knows that they're a lot more reliable than people give them credit for - though I expect manufacturing's gone down the shitter in the past decade.
Tapes do not last very long, wear and tear is huge, and organizations generally like to re-use old tapes, which makes matters even worse.
Right, incompetence. Every medium comes with advice on how often you should re-use it, and if you don't follow the advice, don't blame the medium.
Argh. Risk and cost assessments say that the closer you get to the outlet, the better your equipment should be. It's like people with $1000+ PCs who put in a $20 PSU. You're better off getting a brand name low end device which has been recently decommissioned.