For a treatment to be a cure it has to eliminate the virus from your system, and what is described in the summary doesn't seem to be that.
So I did the unthinkable and actually read the TFA (I know, I can't believe it myself). To the credit of the summary in it the reporter does claim that it's a cure. However just a couple of paragraphs over a scientist in the team is quoted as saying:
"You would still be infected with HIV, it's not a cure for the virus, but the virus would stay latent, it wouldn't wake up, so it wouldn't develop into Aids," he added.
So, no, it is not a cure, but a great promising treatment for the disease.
1) Host software can be IPv4-only, IPv6-only, dual-stack, or hybrid dual-stack.
2) Hybrid dual-stack IPv6/IPv4 implementations recognize a special class of addresses, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
3) Some common IPv6 stacks do not implement the IPv4-mapped address feature.
So let me sum it up for you of the three types of IPv6 software hosts only one of them supports IPv4 mapped address, and even among this limited set some do not implement it (or has to be activated, like in Linux).
I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one.
Because IPv6 was incorrectly designed from a flag day perspective. As late as 1999 people were still talking about a possible flag day when the net went down and woke up speaking IPv6 only.
Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....
Or what, really, do you suppose our other option is?... NAT isn't an alternative.
First, I do not accept your premise that NAT is not an alternative. It has worked fine for the last 20 years and it will continue to work fine for at least another 10.
Second, our other option is to dump IPv6 and propose a new alternative using existing hardware. At present state it consists of: IPv4-only gear, IPv4/IPv6 gear (dual stack), NAT boxes, Merchant Silicon, and programmable router boxes.
9000% adoption in less than a year from world IPv6 launch day
You really do not believe that IPv6 first went live on "world IPv6 launch day" do you?
The protocol has been a standard since 1998, and "IPv6 launch day" was just another effort to get the ball rolling (there have been several before that). So any way you cut it 1% adoption fifteen years after first launched is a dismal failure.
I agree with you that it might be too late to roll back. We are just kind of stuck halfway between IPv4 and IPv6 with IPv6 being more of a roadblock at this time ("well, there is already a solution out there, if a bad one") than help, since it is not being adopted fast enough.
Though they could of course allow you to view the revision history.... and severely punish your userid and IP if you ever replaced a +5 Insightful with spam.
Actually Windows 7 is also part of the problem and a step backwards. You see it has a buggy Teredo implementation leading to a ton of Teredo Ethernet adapters hanging on to their entries in the ipconfig tables. Some people report up to thousands of adapters. This has lead to various organizations disabling the IPv6 stack in their Windows network configuration.
What happens is that IPv6 has been such a dismal failure so far that its supporters now cheer wildly every time it looks like it isn't dead yet. The technological version of "it moved, I swear, I saw it move, don't unplug the machines just yet!"
Just recently an IPv6 proponent sent me a chart showing IPv6 traffic growing from 0.25% to 1% of the Internet in a year as proof of its "impending success" and "rapid adoption".
4) The programmer discovers that functional languages do not provide enough access to basic data structures to write high volume state of the art applications, and rewrite many key portions of the code in C thus coming full circle.
Whoever writes a functional language that understands arrays and pointers will rule the world.
but modern Android devices are faster in part because of software performance improvements.
Historically you can always get more performance improvements out of software than hardware. Software improvements of 100x on bottlenecks are not uncommon (Google for example has made a ton of them in search, http, maps, etc). This is the same as running on hardware that is five or six generations in the future.
The classic quote is that primality testing has benefited more from better algorithms than from 40 years of Moore's law.
to provide a richer *and* secure programming environment inside a web browser, it's clear that aspect of it is a failure.
This was clear five minutes after Java was introduced. Eighteen years later the web still is mostly a static medium with modest programming. So modest indeed that a screwed-up dynamically scoped mishmash of a script language (JavaScript) suffices to meet them.
Java was a 45K ton battleship when all that was needed was an 100lb sturdy fishing dory.
There is no evidence that I have seen that the government is any less sociopathic.
Governments almost by definition (outside of repressive dictatorships) are by definition non-sociopathic.
That is the main reason why no democratic country has ever suffered a famine: an elected government at the end of the day is accountable to its citizens and when it fails to do so in a major way it or its party gets booted out (see under the B: Bush, George W.).
'"But A.I.G. doesn't owe loyalty to the government," a person close to Mr. Greenberg said. "It owes loyalty to its shareholders."'
No it doesn't.
Sadly, by law, Mr. Greenberg is correct. As an officer of a corporation your sole duty is to shareholders under penalty of imprisonment. Yeap, you read that right, by law, in the USA, corporations have to be sociopathic.
IANAL, but this was made amply clear to us by our corporate lawyer when we went public.
So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up.
I call BS. Let's look at famously "high taxes" countries in Europe. Taxes in Germany are the same as they were in 1975. France are at the same level as in 1985, Sweden same as in 1975. UK same as in 1980. Netherlands same as in 1973. Canada same level as in 1980. USA same level as in 1965.
Taxes are too high. Sounds good, it is easy to line up beyond that and it is utter bullshit. By first world and by its own historical standards US taxes are extremely low, but don't let that get in the way of your meme.
When it comes to workers right, England is not part of Europe. I'm not even sure they are part of the XXth century either, which is why the European Human Rights court spends so much time declaring their disgraceful caste system with all its consequences illegal.
Your comment was in direct response to my observation *UNMODIFIED* IPv4 hosts cannot access the IPv6 network no matter how IPv6 was designed.
Correct, and I've already explained to exhaustion that an application level IPv6 server at the host side, which is much easier to deploy that a change in the OS/network gear at a lower level would have taken care of that.
You refuse to admit this because it means that I had already thought (so far) through every one of your simplistic objections and had already devised a way around them.
Newer languages look more like obfuscated math in an OO context. Perl, JavaScript, Ruby, even Python have an element of unreadability to them--if not well commented, then I'll often need to consult an online reference or reference book to understand exactly what is going on.
I noticed this the first time I opened the source code of a simple Python application. It was very hard to decode what was going on, even though I'm proficient in Basic, C, C++, Pascal, Algol, Perl, Lisp, ML, awk, csh, matlab, prolog, logo, Ada, Cobol, TeX/LaTeX, postscript, scheme. You'd figure that those should be enough to interpolate the meaning of any program in a reasonable language.
I went back to school and finished my PhD in Physics. They lied -- there really is no shortage of scientists.
There is a shortage of scientist, just not in the fields that are typically pursued within the hallowed halls of academia. Go ahead and do a PhD in High Energy physics, String theory, Cosmology or Relativistic physics and you'll end up like the person in the GP post. If you study, on the other hand, semiconductor physics, friction, or material physics you'll find half a dozen offers for well paid positions in industry research labs in no time.
Correct. I'm proposing a superset of 6to4 as part of the protocol.
Look, at a higher level, IPv6 was designed to be a flag day transition. When this didn't work people started proposing transition protocols like 6to4 in the hope that they would ease the transition. Fifteen years later it hasn't happened.
What I'm trying to argue is that, clearly, making IPv6 a flag day protocol was a mistake and all the patches that have been proposed (none of which cover all the things I'm proposing) should have been part of the design of the protocol from day one.
We could have made IPv6 such that all applications could go IPv6 native the next day as opposed to hosts. From then on all addresses at the app level are now treated as IPv6, have the IANA issue only IPv6 addresses from then on, and have a simple IPv6 server on the localhost take care of the translation to IPv4 if the host itself is not IPv6 native. Remember software is easy to change, hardware is expensive to upgrade,
All of the above eventually partially happened, in random order and piecemeal fashion. Is it really that difficult for you to see what is inherently wrong with that? Do you not take home any lessons from the dismal state of adoption of IPv6?
If you don't see any lessons from those facts there is little I can tell you that will change your mind.
You just pointed to a recent, experimental RFC from two years ago proposing, experimentally, exactly what I'm suggesting. This proves two things (1) it is not part of the protocol and (2) I'm not alone when pointing out the flaws on the IPv6 design.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cure for AIDs, not a cure for HIV.
That is not the medical usage.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/05/17/Doctors-examine-AIDS-cure-case/UPI-79711305647048/
and ultimately cure the disease.
For a treatment to be a cure it has to eliminate the virus from your system, and what is described in the summary doesn't seem to be that.
So I did the unthinkable and actually read the TFA (I know, I can't believe it myself). To the credit of the summary in it the reporter does claim that it's a cure. However just a couple of paragraphs over a scientist in the team is quoted as saying:
"You would still be infected with HIV, it's not a cure for the virus, but the virus would stay latent, it wouldn't wake up, so it wouldn't develop into Aids," he added.
So, no, it is not a cure, but a great promising treatment for the disease.
Um....they did?
Um... they did not.
From the same wikipedia article:
1) Host software can be IPv4-only, IPv6-only, dual-stack, or hybrid dual-stack.
2) Hybrid dual-stack IPv6/IPv4 implementations recognize a special class of addresses, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
3) Some common IPv6 stacks do not implement the IPv4-mapped address feature.
So let me sum it up for you of the three types of IPv6 software hosts only one of them supports IPv4 mapped address, and even among this limited set some do not implement it (or has to be activated, like in Linux).
I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one.
Because IPv6 was incorrectly designed from a flag day perspective. As late as 1999 people were still talking about a possible flag day when the net went down and woke up speaking IPv6 only.
Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....
It's been tried. It was called the Great IPv6 Experiment and it was a failure.
Or what, really, do you suppose our other option is?... NAT isn't an alternative.
First, I do not accept your premise that NAT is not an alternative. It has worked fine for the last 20 years and it will continue to work fine for at least another 10.
Second, our other option is to dump IPv6 and propose a new alternative using existing hardware. At present state it consists of: IPv4-only gear, IPv4/IPv6 gear (dual stack), NAT boxes, Merchant Silicon, and programmable router boxes.
9000% adoption in less than a year from world IPv6 launch day
You really do not believe that IPv6 first went live on "world IPv6 launch day" do you?
The protocol has been a standard since 1998, and "IPv6 launch day" was just another effort to get the ball rolling (there have been several before that). So any way you cut it 1% adoption fifteen years after first launched is a dismal failure.
I agree with you that it might be too late to roll back. We are just kind of stuck halfway between IPv4 and IPv6 with IPv6 being more of a roadblock at this time ("well, there is already a solution out there, if a bad one") than help, since it is not being adopted fast enough.
Though they could of course allow you to view the revision history.... and severely punish your userid and IP if you ever replaced a +5 Insightful with spam.
ISPs are the problem here.
Actually Windows 7 is also part of the problem and a step backwards. You see it has a buggy Teredo implementation leading to a ton of Teredo Ethernet adapters hanging on to their entries in the ipconfig tables. Some people report up to thousands of adapters. This has lead to various organizations disabling the IPv6 stack in their Windows network configuration.
You must be new here. It doesn't even support "edit" which is breakthrough technology from the 1980s.
It's like a flashback to Unix ca. 1980 when you couldn't edit the command line if you made a mistake while typing a command.
What happens is that IPv6 has been such a dismal failure so far that its supporters now cheer wildly every time it looks like it isn't dead yet. The technological version of "it moved, I swear, I saw it move, don't unplug the machines just yet!"
Just recently an IPv6 proponent sent me a chart showing IPv6 traffic growing from 0.25% to 1% of the Internet in a year as proof of its "impending success" and "rapid adoption".
4) The programmer discovers that functional languages do not provide enough access to basic data structures to write high volume state of the art applications, and rewrite many key portions of the code in C thus coming full circle.
Whoever writes a functional language that understands arrays and pointers will rule the world.
but modern Android devices are faster in part because of software performance improvements.
Historically you can always get more performance improvements out of software than hardware. Software improvements of 100x on bottlenecks are not uncommon (Google for example has made a ton of them in search, http, maps, etc). This is the same as running on hardware that is five or six generations in the future.
The classic quote is that primality testing has benefited more from better algorithms than from 40 years of Moore's law.
to provide a richer *and* secure programming environment inside a web browser, it's clear that aspect of it is a failure.
This was clear five minutes after Java was introduced. Eighteen years later the web still is mostly a static medium with modest programming. So modest indeed that a screwed-up dynamically scoped mishmash of a script language (JavaScript) suffices to meet them.
Java was a 45K ton battleship when all that was needed was an 100lb sturdy fishing dory.
There is no evidence that I have seen that the government is any less sociopathic.
Governments almost by definition (outside of repressive dictatorships) are by definition non-sociopathic.
That is the main reason why no democratic country has ever suffered a famine: an elected government at the end of the day is accountable to its citizens and when it fails to do so in a major way it or its party gets booted out (see under the B: Bush, George W.).
'"But A.I.G. doesn't owe loyalty to the government," a person close to Mr. Greenberg said. "It owes loyalty to its shareholders."'
No it doesn't.
Sadly, by law, Mr. Greenberg is correct. As an officer of a corporation your sole duty is to shareholders under penalty of imprisonment. Yeap, you read that right, by law, in the USA, corporations have to be sociopathic.
IANAL, but this was made amply clear to us by our corporate lawyer when we went public.
So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up.
I call BS. Let's look at famously "high taxes" countries in Europe. Taxes in Germany are the same as they were in 1975. France are at the same level as in 1985, Sweden same as in 1975. UK same as in 1980. Netherlands same as in 1973. Canada same level as in 1980. USA same level as in 1965.
Taxes are too high. Sounds good, it is easy to line up beyond that and it is utter bullshit. By first world and by its own historical standards US taxes are extremely low, but don't let that get in the way of your meme.
"Look guys, we've won ourselves some trees"
"Oh? Olive trees? No?"
Actually the algorithm was slightly more complicated. After that the next question was:
"can you cut them down then and grow grapes?"
if (answer==yes) {
while (true) {
grow(grapes);
make(wine);
drink(wine);
}
} else {
return(land);
}
This was in England, from 2009 onwards.
When it comes to workers right, England is not part of Europe. I'm not even sure they are part of the XXth century either, which is why the European Human Rights court spends so much time declaring their disgraceful caste system with all its consequences illegal.
Your comment was in direct response to my observation *UNMODIFIED* IPv4 hosts cannot access the IPv6 network no matter how IPv6 was designed.
Correct, and I've already explained to exhaustion that an application level IPv6 server at the host side, which is much easier to deploy that a change in the OS/network gear at a lower level would have taken care of that.
You refuse to admit this because it means that I had already thought (so far) through every one of your simplistic objections and had already devised a way around them.
Newer languages look more like obfuscated math in an OO context. Perl, JavaScript, Ruby, even Python have an element of unreadability to them--if not well commented, then I'll often need to consult an online reference or reference book to understand exactly what is going on.
I noticed this the first time I opened the source code of a simple Python application. It was very hard to decode what was going on, even though I'm proficient in Basic, C, C++, Pascal, Algol, Perl, Lisp, ML, awk, csh, matlab, prolog, logo, Ada, Cobol, TeX/LaTeX, postscript, scheme. You'd figure that those should be enough to interpolate the meaning of any program in a reasonable language.
I went back to school and finished my PhD in Physics. They lied -- there really is no shortage of scientists.
There is a shortage of scientist, just not in the fields that are typically pursued within the hallowed halls of academia. Go ahead and do a PhD in High Energy physics, String theory, Cosmology or Relativistic physics and you'll end up like the person in the GP post. If you study, on the other hand, semiconductor physics, friction, or material physics you'll find half a dozen offers for well paid positions in industry research labs in no time.
Now comes the Kindle. Books DRMed to the Wazoo.
You should have a look at the Kobo reader. E-books are sold with a lot less restrictions in their bookstore as compared to the kindle.
This, right here, is exactly how 6to4 works.
Correct. I'm proposing a superset of 6to4 as part of the protocol.
Look, at a higher level, IPv6 was designed to be a flag day transition. When this didn't work people started proposing transition protocols like 6to4 in the hope that they would ease the transition. Fifteen years later it hasn't happened.
What I'm trying to argue is that, clearly, making IPv6 a flag day protocol was a mistake and all the patches that have been proposed (none of which cover all the things I'm proposing) should have been part of the design of the protocol from day one.
We could have made IPv6 such that all applications could go IPv6 native the next day as opposed to hosts. From then on all addresses at the app level are now treated as IPv6, have the IANA issue only IPv6 addresses from then on, and have a simple IPv6 server on the localhost take care of the translation to IPv4 if the host itself is not IPv6 native. Remember software is easy to change, hardware is expensive to upgrade,
All of the above eventually partially happened, in random order and piecemeal fashion. Is it really that difficult for you to see what is inherently wrong with that? Do you not take home any lessons from the dismal state of adoption of IPv6?
If you don't see any lessons from those facts there is little I can tell you that will change your mind.
You just pointed to a recent, experimental RFC from two years ago proposing, experimentally, exactly what I'm suggesting. This proves two things (1) it is not part of the protocol and (2) I'm not alone when pointing out the flaws on the IPv6 design.