An IPv4 only host is cutoff from IPv6 until their ISP upgrades after which it just works or any number of tunneling solutions are installed by the user or upstream ISP including the obnoxious anycast based solutions and any dynamic NAT mapping of 1918 or E space to IPv6.
Only because the protocol wasn't made backward compatible. One easy way to make IPv4 only nodes compatible with IPv6 applications would have been to preserve the old IPv4 prefixes. Say if an IPv6 application wants to talk to an IPv6 address X1:X2:X3:X4 where each of the Xi's is a 32 bit chunk you can pass the packet through IPv4 to destination X1 port 6. That is inside the other application domain, which has to be IPv6 aware (otherwise why are you trying to talk to it using an IPv6 app?). Then this node grabs the packet and from then on is treated as an IPv6 address within that network. Even better, if the final destination is IPv4-only aware, then the IPv6 node becomes a NAT like device which de-encapsulates the packet and passes it on to IPv4 (private) address X2.
That IPv6 isn't adopted doesn't have anything to do with the qualities of the protocol.
The fact that people wouldn't switch unless forced to has everything to do with the qualities of the protocol. When technology is superior people cannot wait to move to it (e.g. CDs, DVDs, MP3 players as an audio progression, or WWW replacing gopher). Yet with IPv6 people have been dragging their feet for as long as they can. Fifteen years and counting.
Right, just like we cannot use a few bits to label IPv4 traffic over ATM... oh wait!
As I said, we map many IPv6 addresses into a single IPv4 and use encapsulation to encode the remaining part. Not unlike NATs which use the local address translation table to tease apart many things being mapped to a single IP address, but in this case we use the extra bits encapsulated in the packet.
Once the packet reaches a fully IPv6 capable node it gets send on IPv6 or we use private address space for the journey to complete over IPv4, again, not unlike NATs.
You are too worked up to understand any of what I'm saying. Sleep over it and come back tomorrow. Meanwhile chew on this: the scheme requires an IPv6 server at both ends if the ends are only IPv4 enabled. When you figure out why you'll understand why you don't even need an IPv6 stack locally for an application to use IPv6 (though ideally you would have one) and why we bother with the tunneling.
The problem all of these schems gloss over or otherwise pretend don't exist is that IPv4 nodes on the IPv4 only network are disconnected from IPv6 nodes on the IPv6 network!
Correct, which is one again a simple engineering challenge. You can use port 6 or (6666 in user space if you are not admin) to deploy an IPv6 server in your own computer. Then you can now talk IPv6 from any computer, have the local server translate into IPv4 if need be, or simply pass along as an IPv6 packet if it finds the computer to be IPv6 enabled. The translation into IPv4 uses encapsulation like in 6to4 tunneling and the packet is decoded at the other end also by an IPv6 capable server. From there is routed for the last mile to the actual destination, in a NAT-like manner.
This means that we could have all the applications talk IPv6 in no time and then let the underlying infrastructure migrate to IPv6 in due time. Currently this is clearly not happening at a fast enough rate.
If 6to4 and other tunneling technologies hadn't been developed the percentage of IPv6 traffic would round down to 0.0%. I can guarantee you that. There are very few complete end-to-end IPv6 paths currently on the public Internet. The packet is tunneled at least part of the way, often by the last mile ISP, but until recently even by some of the backbones themselves.
Heck not even slashdot or www.MIT.edu speak IPv6.
Again, think about it. This should tell you an awful lot about where things stand today.
None of these schemes are worth a hill of beans when there are no more IPv4 addresses available to serve as bearers for such an overlay network.
Just because you cannot engineer past the details it doesn't mean it can't be done. Since we have IPv6 on top of IPv4 we can take back most of the IPv4 addresses from every organization. Essentially only border routers need to have IPv4 addresses. Think about it, institutions which currently have thousands or even tens of thousands of IP addresses would go down to a few hundred IPv4 addresses.
Once the packet reaches the IPv4 border 4to6 router the packet traverses the rest of the journey using either intra network IPv6 addresses or private IPv4 addresses,, not unlike NATs. The difference is that you can publicize your NAT+internal_IP address as an IPv6 address to the entire world, whereas it is a bit more of a kludge to make a NAT'ed computer visible to the entire network.
Really, think about it for a moment. What I'm suggesting is a combination of existing technologies. 6to4 tunneling, MPLS switching, NAT, ATM label switching, shimming, IPv4, IPv6. All the pieces are already there, they just need to be combined in a better way.
It requires that v4-only hosts be taught how to speak it, the same as 6to4 does.
No it does not. If they don't speak IPv6 they simply route the packet as if it was IPv4. Only the host destination needs to speak IPv6 and since it is addressed to a port, it does not require the IP stack to speak IPv6, only the server listening to that port.
Surely you are not suggesting that we encapsulate v6 addresses inside v4 addresses. That's not going to work.
Of course it will work You coalesce many IPv6 addresses into a single IPv4/IPv6 node. The packet traverses then to the 4to6 gateway over IPv4 where it is opened and the rest of the IPv6 address is recovered from within the encapsulation. The gatway uses that part to route the packet for the next leg of the trip. This is the exact same trick used by virtual switching in ATM networks as well as MPLS.
You also have to remember that total traffic is growing exponentially, so merely exponential IPv6 growth is not enough to close the gap unless the base is bigger than IPv4's.
IPv6 ain't working. This should pretty much be clear to all, since it is not being widely adopted. The IPv6 proponents can down moderate those who point the flaws all they want but the facts speak for themselves.
A more constructive approach was to take steps to facilitate its adoption, such as tunneling, the IPv6 day and the IPv6 experiment. It didn't work. Fourteen years since it has been introduced with IPv4 address space running out rapidly and still only 1% of the internet. At this point we have to believe that nothing short of a completely new protocol will succeed.
Again, 6to4 is a patch, not a properly designed transition interface. E.g. from wikipedia:
6to4 does not facilitate interoperation between IPv4-only hosts and IPv6-only hosts. 6to4 is simply a transparent mechanism used as a transport layer between IPv6 nodes.
Due to the high levels of misconfigured hosts and poor performance observed, an advisory about how 6to4 should be deployed was published in August 2011.
Moreover, 6to4 encapsulates IPv4 addresses in IPv6 2002: addresses, which is the reverse of what I'm suggesting.
I've been telling everyone since before the protocol was formalized that it would take a long time to be adopted the way it was designed. Then, just like now people gave silly arguments why I was wrong. Well here we are 16 or so years after I first raised these objections and IPv6 is still less than 1% of the net.
6to4 is an extension which is optional as opposed to an intrinsic part of the protocol. This distinction is important.
Moreover the fact that 6to4 was developed at all, after IPv6 was proposed, proves my point and shows that my criticisms of IPv6 were/are shared by many.
I recall having a discussion with an anti-GMO campaigner in the late 90s in France. I was insisted that what was needed was extensive testing protocols, not unlike new drug approvals, rather than blanket opposition.
Sadly in Europe they got mostly blanket opposition while in USA we got mostly "rollover and hope that crops which produce their own DDT are not bad for you".
The solution to this problem, which was presented decades ago, is to switch to IPv6.
If IPv6 were the solution we would have already switched to it. IPv6 was stillborn, pretty much starting from the moment it wasn't backward compatible with IPv4. It would have been trivial to keep the current IPv4 address space and dedicate some of the multicast or reserved address space (class D and E) and a dedicated port (say the unassigned port 6) to IPv6.
A message destined to an IPv6 128 bit destination could be sent to the 32 bit prefix port 6 or up stream encapsulated to a 236.*.*.*-246.*.*.* destination.
Each node along the way is then allowed to open the encapsulated IPv4 packet to extract the IPv6 headers, if IPv6 capable, or treat it like an IPv4 packet and pass it along to its IPv4 destination which is always an IPv6 capable node.
This node then must open the encapsulated package and further process it as needed.
If we are not financially worse off with a 20 hr work week, that's one way to go. It would give people more time to pursue their dreams
Absolutely. Vacation/free time is one of the most undervalued commodities in our society today. If Europeans can maintain high standards of living and get two months off a year, why not us? The consequences are also a healthier society, with more time for interpersonal relationships and cultural/recreational pursuits.
I think the anti-software patents movement has been hurt by their "complete rejection of software patents" position. Look, if you design a truly novel Ethernet conflict resolution algorithm that gives you improved performance over anything else known before you surely deserve a patent. However it should be narrowly defined and have a shortened life span, for reasons opposite to the extended lifespan for long development path currently available to drug developers.
The problem is that currently the USPTO would pretty much approve a patent whose claims are "method to improve Ethernet conflict resolution by using any algorithm to recompute the delay". This is overly broad and without parallel in the physical embodiment patent world. In contrast trivial patents do exist in the physical world, but since the claims are so narrow it is very easy to work around them.
the real tricky part was in making the steel ingots which were made exclusively in India,
Even if you had a wootz ingot forging a blade was still a challenge, and in fact 19th and early 20th century smiths failed in spite of numerous attempts. Only quite recently has the process become nearly fully understood.
Not that it matters, but just to set the record straight, "damascus" steel, just like the "Arabic" numeral system, was neither invented in Damascus nor in Arabia nor in Spain.
You are talking about Damascus steel, I'm talking about the Damascus sword. The Damascus sword indeed used wootz high quality steel (at least originally) but it also had a secret manufacturing process which was equally important.
ALAN WILLIAMS: The swords were far better than any other swords made, before or since, in Europe. And these must have been extraordinarily valuable to their contemporaries, because of their properties.
Except for the Damascus sword, which was fabricated in several places in the Muslim empire, including, famously, in Toledo, Spain, where to this date there is a blade making industry.
Not only that, but the Viking sword was merely an attempt to duplicate the quality of the Saracen sword.
It will happen organically. At my office the amount of printing per employee has gone down by a factor of 10x over 20 years, as email, blogs, departmental web pages, monitors, and electronic annotation have gotten better. The latest drop is the tablet/smart phone revolution. Documents that people needed to have "offline" and before would have been printed are now accessed on their portable devices.
At the same time, slowly business forms are migrating to electronic equivalents. I've noticed this in a very clear way as the size of my take home briefcase continues to get smaller, while the amount of work I take home stays the same. Simply more and more of my work can be carried home electronically.
Well, it is misguided in that Microsoft should actually try to win markets by making better products. But they have never been good at that. Their entire success is based on leveraging their Windows PC monopoly, so this strategy is "do what works".
Actually they kind of did for a while or at least they tried, until Dr. Dos came out and beat the crap out of MS-DOS. Microsoft execs gave the go ahead to include the "disable-if-Dr-Dos" codes and the troops got the message loud and clear: we don't need to make quality products, all we need to do is make Ok products and use the Microsoft monopoly position to take care of the rest.
But guess what happens when they don't own a market, such as Search or Mobile? People at Microsoft no longer even remember how one goes about making a quality product. Hence the many mediocre versions of Windows, Zune, Bing, and Mobile OSes.
I define "abusing" as doing things like overloading an addition operator which doesn't perform an additive operation.
There are other issues, such as side effects. Say if I add/merge two complex data structures or assign them does it create deep copies through and through or does it creates a new reference to the object?
It also makes errors harder to catch, since it weakens the type signatures of the overloaded functions.
Or are we just expected to accept the veracity of your unsubstantiated claim that "today it is considered mostly a source of bugs"?
No, I expect you to already know this. Just like you to know that there is such a thing as Java, without me having to give a citation.
Not to mention defending Obamacare as a cost saving program,
Which it is. There is nothing as inefficient as the current system we have. We pay twice as much as any other country in the world for no better outcome.
openly lying about Ryan's voucher program
The only person lying about Ryan's program was Ryan, since it wasn't even a program. There were unspecified massive cuts in his program, the equivalent of the slashdot 1)... 2)... 3)??? 4) Profit!
Surprisingly the press fell for it much as you did too, with no one questioning what exactly step 3) would consist of. Krugman speculated that it would consist of massive cuts to social programs and thus indeed kill people, if we were to take Ryan at his word.
He has zero credibility left except perhaps with deluded dailykos crowd.
He provides confidential advice to governments all over the world, has a column in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, is a professor in one of the best universities in the country and is the winner of the Nobel prize of economics. Yeap, I can see the zero credibility all over the place.
deluded dailykos crowd.
You are projecting here. You might disagree with everything he says, but the dude has credibility up the wazoo.
For example, I think Alan Greenspan. is a hack and at least 50% responsible for the current mess we are in (Bush being the other 50%) but I have no problem admitting that the guy's opinion still carries a lot of weight in many circles. More than I wish it did, but that's tangential to the point.
You on the other hand don't seem to be able to make the simple distinction between what you wish the world was and what it is. Hence you delude yourself into believing that Krugman is irrelevant.
The Wang word processor was $5K, which had already come down first to $1K on the PC and then $500 with wordperfect. The writing was on the wall that prices needed to go down, but at the time people had a really hard time lowering prices. You can read about the epic battles in every microcomputer company back then when it came to lowering prices and cannibalizing your own products.
Slashdot Mirror
An IPv4 only host is cutoff from IPv6 until their ISP upgrades after which it just works or any number of tunneling solutions are installed by the user or upstream ISP including the obnoxious anycast based solutions and any dynamic NAT mapping of 1918 or E space to IPv6.
Only because the protocol wasn't made backward compatible. One easy way to make IPv4 only nodes compatible with IPv6 applications would have been to preserve the old IPv4 prefixes. Say if an IPv6 application wants to talk to an IPv6 address X1:X2:X3:X4 where each of the Xi's is a 32 bit chunk you can pass the packet through IPv4 to destination X1 port 6. That is inside the other application domain, which has to be IPv6 aware (otherwise why are you trying to talk to it using an IPv6 app?). Then this node grabs the packet and from then on is treated as an IPv6 address within that network. Even better, if the final destination is IPv4-only aware, then the IPv6 node becomes a NAT like device which de-encapsulates the packet and passes it on to IPv4 (private) address X2.
That IPv6 isn't adopted doesn't have anything to do with the qualities of the protocol.
The fact that people wouldn't switch unless forced to has everything to do with the qualities of the protocol. When technology is superior people cannot wait to move to it (e.g. CDs, DVDs, MP3 players as an audio progression, or WWW replacing gopher). Yet with IPv6 people have been dragging their feet for as long as they can. Fifteen years and counting.
Right, just like we cannot use a few bits to label IPv4 traffic over ATM... oh wait!
As I said, we map many IPv6 addresses into a single IPv4 and use encapsulation to encode the remaining part. Not unlike NATs which use the local address translation table to tease apart many things being mapped to a single IP address, but in this case we use the extra bits encapsulated in the packet.
Once the packet reaches a fully IPv6 capable node it gets send on IPv6 or we use private address space for the journey to complete over IPv4, again, not unlike NATs.
You are too worked up to understand any of what I'm saying. Sleep over it and come back tomorrow. Meanwhile chew on this: the scheme requires an IPv6 server at both ends if the ends are only IPv4 enabled. When you figure out why you'll understand why you don't even need an IPv6 stack locally for an application to use IPv6 (though ideally you would have one) and why we bother with the tunneling.
The problem all of these schems gloss over or otherwise pretend don't exist is that IPv4 nodes on the IPv4 only network are disconnected from IPv6 nodes on the IPv6 network!
Correct, which is one again a simple engineering challenge. You can use port 6 or (6666 in user space if you are not admin) to deploy an IPv6 server in your own computer. Then you can now talk IPv6 from any computer, have the local server translate into IPv4 if need be, or simply pass along as an IPv6 packet if it finds the computer to be IPv6 enabled. The translation into IPv4 uses encapsulation like in 6to4 tunneling and the packet is decoded at the other end also by an IPv6 capable server. From there is routed for the last mile to the actual destination, in a NAT-like manner.
This means that we could have all the applications talk IPv6 in no time and then let the underlying infrastructure migrate to IPv6 in due time. Currently this is clearly not happening at a fast enough rate.
If 6to4 and other tunneling technologies hadn't been developed the percentage of IPv6 traffic would round down to 0.0%. I can guarantee you that. There are very few complete end-to-end IPv6 paths currently on the public Internet. The packet is tunneled at least part of the way, often by the last mile ISP, but until recently even by some of the backbones themselves.
Heck not even slashdot or www.MIT.edu speak IPv6.
Again, think about it. This should tell you an awful lot about where things stand today.
None of these schemes are worth a hill of beans when there are no more IPv4 addresses available to serve as bearers for such an overlay network.
Just because you cannot engineer past the details it doesn't mean it can't be done. Since we have IPv6 on top of IPv4 we can take back most of the IPv4 addresses from every organization. Essentially only border routers need to have IPv4 addresses. Think about it, institutions which currently have thousands or even tens of thousands of IP addresses would go down to a few hundred IPv4 addresses.
Once the packet reaches the IPv4 border 4to6 router the packet traverses the rest of the journey using either intra network IPv6 addresses or private IPv4 addresses,, not unlike NATs. The difference is that you can publicize your NAT+internal_IP address as an IPv6 address to the entire world, whereas it is a bit more of a kludge to make a NAT'ed computer visible to the entire network.
Really, think about it for a moment. What I'm suggesting is a combination of existing technologies. 6to4 tunneling, MPLS switching, NAT, ATM label switching, shimming, IPv4, IPv6. All the pieces are already there, they just need to be combined in a better way.
It requires that v4-only hosts be taught how to speak it, the same as 6to4 does.
No it does not. If they don't speak IPv6 they simply route the packet as if it was IPv4. Only the host destination needs to speak IPv6 and since it is addressed to a port, it does not require the IP stack to speak IPv6, only the server listening to that port.
Surely you are not suggesting that we encapsulate v6 addresses inside v4 addresses. That's not going to work.
Of course it will work You coalesce many IPv6 addresses into a single IPv4/IPv6 node. The packet traverses then to the 4to6 gateway over IPv4 where it is opened and the rest of the IPv6 address is recovered from within the encapsulation. The gatway uses that part to route the packet for the next leg of the trip. This is the exact same trick used by virtual switching in ATM networks as well as MPLS.
I choose to believe publically available bandwidth charts showing an exponential curve
Here are some charts. Hardly a success story.
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/stats/
http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html
You also have to remember that total traffic is growing exponentially, so merely exponential IPv6 growth is not enough to close the gap unless the base is bigger than IPv4's.
IPv6 ain't working. This should pretty much be clear to all, since it is not being widely adopted. The IPv6 proponents can down moderate those who point the flaws all they want but the facts speak for themselves.
A more constructive approach was to take steps to facilitate its adoption, such as tunneling, the IPv6 day and the IPv6 experiment. It didn't work. Fourteen years since it has been introduced with IPv4 address space running out rapidly and still only 1% of the internet. At this point we have to believe that nothing short of a completely new protocol will succeed.
Again, 6to4 is a patch, not a properly designed transition interface. E.g. from wikipedia:
6to4 does not facilitate interoperation between IPv4-only hosts and IPv6-only hosts. 6to4 is simply a transparent mechanism used as a transport layer between IPv6 nodes.
Due to the high levels of misconfigured hosts and poor performance observed, an advisory about how 6to4 should be deployed was published in August 2011.
Moreover, 6to4 encapsulates IPv4 addresses in IPv6 2002: addresses, which is the reverse of what I'm suggesting.
I've been telling everyone since before the protocol was formalized that it would take a long time to be adopted the way it was designed. Then, just like now people gave silly arguments why I was wrong. Well here we are 16 or so years after I first raised these objections and IPv6 is still less than 1% of the net.
6to4 is an extension which is optional as opposed to an intrinsic part of the protocol. This distinction is important.
Moreover the fact that 6to4 was developed at all, after IPv6 was proposed, proves my point and shows that my criticisms of IPv6 were/are shared by many.
I recall having a discussion with an anti-GMO campaigner in the late 90s in France. I was insisted that what was needed was extensive testing protocols, not unlike new drug approvals, rather than blanket opposition.
Sadly in Europe they got mostly blanket opposition while in USA we got mostly "rollover and hope that crops which produce their own DDT are not bad for you".
A total loss-loss situation.
The solution to this problem, which was presented decades ago, is to switch to IPv6.
If IPv6 were the solution we would have already switched to it. IPv6 was stillborn, pretty much starting from the moment it wasn't backward compatible with IPv4. It would have been trivial to keep the current IPv4 address space and dedicate some of the multicast or reserved address space (class D and E) and a dedicated port (say the unassigned port 6) to IPv6.
A message destined to an IPv6 128 bit destination could be sent to the 32 bit prefix port 6 or up stream encapsulated to a 236.*.*.*-246.*.*.* destination.
Each node along the way is then allowed to open the encapsulated IPv4 packet to extract the IPv6 headers, if IPv6 capable, or treat it like an IPv4 packet and pass it along to its IPv4 destination which is always an IPv6 capable node.
This node then must open the encapsulated package and further process it as needed.
If we are not financially worse off with a 20 hr work week, that's one way to go. It would give people more time to pursue their dreams
Absolutely. Vacation/free time is one of the most undervalued commodities in our society today. If Europeans can maintain high standards of living and get two months off a year, why not us? The consequences are also a healthier society, with more time for interpersonal relationships and cultural/recreational pursuits.
I think the anti-software patents movement has been hurt by their "complete rejection of software patents" position. Look, if you design a truly novel Ethernet conflict resolution algorithm that gives you improved performance over anything else known before you surely deserve a patent. However it should be narrowly defined and have a shortened life span, for reasons opposite to the extended lifespan for long development path currently available to drug developers.
The problem is that currently the USPTO would pretty much approve a patent whose claims are "method to improve Ethernet conflict resolution by using any algorithm to recompute the delay". This is overly broad and without parallel in the physical embodiment patent world. In contrast trivial patents do exist in the physical world, but since the claims are so narrow it is very easy to work around them.
the real tricky part was in making the steel ingots which were made exclusively in India,
Even if you had a wootz ingot forging a blade was still a challenge, and in fact 19th and early 20th century smiths failed in spite of numerous attempts. Only quite recently has the process become nearly fully understood.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9809/verhoeven-9809.html
Not that it matters, but just to set the record straight, "damascus" steel, just like the "Arabic" numeral system, was neither invented in Damascus nor in Arabia nor in Spain.
You are talking about Damascus steel, I'm talking about the Damascus sword. The Damascus sword indeed used wootz high quality steel (at least originally) but it also had a secret manufacturing process which was equally important.
Quote from the show:
ALAN WILLIAMS: The swords were far better than any other swords made, before or since, in Europe. And these must have been extraordinarily valuable to their contemporaries, because of their properties.
Except for the Damascus sword, which was fabricated in several places in the Muslim empire, including, famously, in Toledo, Spain, where to this date there is a blade making industry.
Not only that, but the Viking sword was merely an attempt to duplicate the quality of the Saracen sword.
It will happen organically. At my office the amount of printing per employee has gone down by a factor of 10x over 20 years, as email, blogs, departmental web pages, monitors, and electronic annotation have gotten better. The latest drop is the tablet/smart phone revolution. Documents that people needed to have "offline" and before would have been printed are now accessed on their portable devices.
At the same time, slowly business forms are migrating to electronic equivalents. I've noticed this in a very clear way as the size of my take home briefcase continues to get smaller, while the amount of work I take home stays the same. Simply more and more of my work can be carried home electronically.
Well, it is misguided in that Microsoft should actually try to win markets by making better products. But they have never been good at that. Their entire success is based on leveraging their Windows PC monopoly, so this strategy is "do what works".
Actually they kind of did for a while or at least they tried, until Dr. Dos came out and beat the crap out of MS-DOS. Microsoft execs gave the go ahead to include the "disable-if-Dr-Dos" codes and the troops got the message loud and clear: we don't need to make quality products, all we need to do is make Ok products and use the Microsoft monopoly position to take care of the rest.
But guess what happens when they don't own a market, such as Search or Mobile? People at Microsoft no longer even remember how one goes about making a quality product. Hence the many mediocre versions of Windows, Zune, Bing, and Mobile OSes.
I define "abusing" as doing things like overloading an addition operator which doesn't perform an additive operation.
There are other issues, such as side effects. Say if I add/merge two complex data structures or assign them does it create deep copies through and through or does it creates a new reference to the object?
It also makes errors harder to catch, since it weakens the type signatures of the overloaded functions.
Or are we just expected to accept the veracity of your unsubstantiated claim that "today it is considered mostly a source of bugs"?
No, I expect you to already know this. Just like you to know that there is such a thing as Java, without me having to give a citation.
abusing that facility is a source of bugs.
That is a vacuous statement. You are defining "non-abusing" as all the ones that do not create bugs and as abusing the ones that do. Duh!
Not to mention defending Obamacare as a cost saving program,
Which it is. There is nothing as inefficient as the current system we have. We pay twice as much as any other country in the world for no better outcome.
openly lying about Ryan's voucher program
The only person lying about Ryan's program was Ryan, since it wasn't even a program. There were unspecified massive cuts in his program, the equivalent of the slashdot 1)... 2)... 3)??? 4) Profit!
Surprisingly the press fell for it much as you did too, with no one questioning what exactly step 3) would consist of. Krugman speculated that it would consist of massive cuts to social programs and thus indeed kill people, if we were to take Ryan at his word.
He has zero credibility left except perhaps with deluded dailykos crowd.
He provides confidential advice to governments all over the world, has a column in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, is a professor in one of the best universities in the country and is the winner of the Nobel prize of economics. Yeap, I can see the zero credibility all over the place.
deluded dailykos crowd.
You are projecting here. You might disagree with everything he says, but the dude has credibility up the wazoo.
For example, I think Alan Greenspan. is a hack and at least 50% responsible for the current mess we are in (Bush being the other 50%) but I have no problem admitting that the guy's opinion still carries a lot of weight in many circles. More than I wish it did, but that's tangential to the point.
You on the other hand don't seem to be able to make the simple distinction between what you wish the world was and what it is. Hence you delude yourself into believing that Krugman is irrelevant.
The Wang word processor was $5K, which had already come down first to $1K on the PC and then $500 with wordperfect. The writing was on the wall that prices needed to go down, but at the time people had a really hard time lowering prices. You can read about the epic battles in every microcomputer company back then when it came to lowering prices and cannibalizing your own products.