Ah, but Neptune is inside Pluto's orbit, so isn't in as high a heaven as it was in.:) And if the Romans were anything to go by, the only thing pissing Neptune off would be that it wasn't invited.
Incidently, the CNN report mentions that the astronomers called them the Halloween Moons - I didn't know Eric Raymond was an astronomer!
...it's not even official yet. The objects are believed to be orbiting Pluto, but there has been no independent confirmation they actually are, and the IAU hasn't (yet) responded to the submitted claim.
If the CEO of SBC says that the pipes are free for customers (hey, he said that it's the content provider who pays, right?) then we should all be entitled to a refund from SBC - 100% for those who get access directly from them, and some percent for the rest who get passed on charges from downstream providers.
I'm sure all the other tier 1 Internet carriers will also be highly interested to learn that SBC does not support peering and holds that they have no peers. If those aren't peer-to-peer connections, then SBC is using other carriers to transport packets, which means SBC owes a lot of companies a lot of money.
In this day and age, there isn't much an individual can do against something the size of SBC. In the days of Usenet, you could at least lobby for that segment of the net to be de-peered (Comcast was the last company to suffer the humiliation) but I'm not sure enough people still use it (or even know what Usenet is) for that to make much of an impact today. With no IT union and no real collective power (libertarians may want to start reconsidering) there is no voice for the individual. It's not as if you can use some other service, since ALL Internet providers will ultimately either buy from SBC or peer with them. If you use the Internet, you use their service, you have no choice. Because source-based routing has long-since been stopped, if SBC wants to route your traffic, your traffic WILL obey. YOU don't get a choice.
This is one time a Government-run monopoly isn't such a bad thing. You can at least vote them out of power. You can't vote SBC out of anything. Geeks are voiceless and powerless - largely by their own choice - and are now being hijacked by a power-crazed money-hungry CEO. And I'm not convinced there's a damn thing anyone can do about it. Especially as megacorps tend to have politicians all bought up and packaged.
You only get an automatic pass if someone in the same class as you dies, and that's only in America. At older British Universities, you are however allowed to ask for a pint of beer and a pork pie during exams.
But halon gas fire suppression systems should have - at least, to the degree of it not getting totally out of control. Without oxygen, fires don't generally do a whole lot - halon largely works by displacing all of the oxygen, leaving the fire nothing to work with.
There's also the question of cannisters exploding... Cannisters generally don't do this - they tend to be rather boring, not even speaking much, unless there's something already happening. Cannisters will react to heat - but, like I said, a halon system should have dealt with heat sources long before they became a threat. Cannisters with explosive gasses CAN explode if the valve is leaky and there is a static discharge. But anyone leaving highly explosive substances around massive sources of static, or indeed, in containers that are faulty - well, they should expect something like this. You should generally store cannisters and gas cylinders in well-ventillated but secure locations containing no combustible materials or materials likely to pick up a static charge.
In practice, you can't go around stowing every single piece of equiptment in absolutely ideal conditions. In consequence, accidents like this are going to happen. Because they are going to happen, the important thing is to keep the impact to a minimum. A lot of effort over the years has gone, not only in building fire suppressing systems, but also in figuring out how to build structures that will contain a fire. The slower a fire can spread, the more likely it is to exhaust fuel and/or oxygen before it can find more.
Now, explosions get more problematic. Once you get explosions, there's not a whole lot even the best design can do, because you have to assume that there will be a sizable area affected. Aside from minimizing risk (through correct handling and operating procedurea) and trapping precursors (such as nearby fires, static, etc), there's not much that can be done. If you want to have a building survive explosions, you've got to design it very differently - lots of honeycombed structures that can absorb the high energies involved, for example. On the whole, though, you wouldn't design a fibre optics centre that way. Fibre isn't known for exploding. Fireworks factories SHOULD be built that way, and a lot of people killed in such explosions might well be alive if such buildings WERE built correctly for the conditions, but that's a whole different ball-game.
Mobility was always intended to be part of the IPv6 standard. Originally, the routing protocol was supposed to take care of it, through the use of transient IP addresses in addition to the main IP address. This is the reason IPv6 numbers currently reserve the last 48 bits for your MAC address, with the rest assigned by upstream routers. It was intended to be very easy for routers to simply shuffle your location around with 100% guarantee of no address clashes.
At present, IPv6 mobility depends on a lot of fiddly detail. However, here are some links on how IPv6 mobility works under Linux and how it is currently intended to work:
Mobile IPv6 for Linux - Includes initial support for "network mobility" (move whole networks around, not just machines)
Quick summary: The user's machine registers with their home router (the home base). When they move to a different network, they notify their home router, which then sets up a transitory IP address on the remote network. The home router then cascades back up the routers the message that the fixed IP address of the mobile machine should now be routed to the transitory IP address, optimizing the routing. When an entire network moves, it notifies its home router in the same way, the only difference being that because you're migrating the router, you also migrate all of the machines attached to it - but none of the machines need to know this or be set up to handle it.
9P allows you to share resources transparently - none of this "it's printer X on machine Y" nonsense. For most home users, that's not such a big deal - there aren't that many computers or devices. But even there, there may well be times when you want to move things around, or your roommate does so when drunk, and you still want things to work the way you'd expect.
IPv6 isn't a big deal for most people. Yet. If you've a laptop with IPv6, and you are in a cafe with wireless IPv6, then you move to a bookshop with wireless IPv6, you'd carry the connection with you. No disconnects, no reconnects. If you're instant messaging, nothing is lost. If you're listening to an Internet radio station, you'd not even detect the switchover. Which is all great, but not something that's actually widespread.
NUMA allows multiple processors to access memory "non-uniformly". In other words, normal memory has to all be reachable at the same time. Everything in lock-step. NUMA allows you to get past that limitation. If you're building a cluster and want all of memory to be seen as a single thing, not lots of chunks that are disconnected from each other, it is great. For everyone else, NUMA has no particular value at this time.
PPTP is only useful if you're wanting to connect to Windows machines using some of their fancier remote-access protocols. For that, it is unbeatable. Largely because Microsoft won't talk to anything else.
HostAP is great if you've a laptop with wireless and a PC connected to DSL or cable. You can turn your PC into a Wireless Access Point and give your laptop full access to the Internet. This is generally better than using any wireless option in your DSL modem or cable modem, because those generally suck for security or reliability.
They can sell it where they wish, but under the doctorine of first sale, they have no business restricting who OEMs can deal with, or restricting where a user can register from. Also, there are limitations on what restrictions you can impose on a sale. If you put a house up for sale, for example, and a buyer meets all the requirements and price, you can't back out of the sale if you decide you don't like the buyer. That would NOT be acceptable. I don't know if Microsoft's restricting sales to South Korea would fall under this category, if they sold a product and THEN found the buyer to be from there. IANAL.
Having said all that, what exactly would South Korea lose from such a threat being carried out, anyway?
SSL is a mechanism that allows you to tunnel a protocol (usually HTTP) through another protocol. All a VPN is is a logical separation of two traffic streams, which means SSL is arguably a VPN mechanism. That must be a bummer for all those online shoppers. The same would be true of DNSSEC, so I hope nobody is getting trustworthy DNS records. IPv6 tunnels and MBone tunnels would certainly fall under that categorization.
In other words, the policy bans virtually everything that anyone ever actually does. It would seem to me that it is less a policy of prohibition, and more a catch-all, so that if you do something they don't like, they have a rule you are 100% guaranteed to have broken, whether or not what they didn't like actually violated the ToS.
To me, such an approach is wide open to abuse (they can do what the hell they like, when they like, to whom they like) and is the sort of approach to governance more often associated with third-world dictators. On the other hand, those companies that have clear, precise, enforced and obscenely over-the-top rules are more remeniscent of extremist Islamic nations.
Why we can't have corporations that exist in THIS century, rather than in political systems that were fashionable a few thousand years ago, is beyond me. Political systems are primitive at best, but they have at least evolved since the fall of Rome.
The guys who forced David Braben into releasing Frontier: First Encounters early - when it still had numerous bugs - and allegedly owe him money over the fiasco? Yeah, I'd trust their opinion on Intellectual Property. Since you're in the same building and all, can you go over and tell them to cut the crap and release games WHEN they're ready? And to get First Encounters - along with their other games - to that point?
I actually have a lot of sympathy for programmers wanting to make money. That's a perfectly valid purpose for programming. I have substantially less sympathy for companies that peddle faulty goods - knowingly - for the purpose of making money from goods that really don't yet exist, rather than waiting until they can make that money fairly and honestly.
Sid Meier deserves sympathy and support for reputable conduct that deserves payment in kind. Take2 deserves a vacation in Siberia.
In real-life, Keiko (the Orca star of Free Willy) was kept in too small a tank after the movie, suffered crippling injuries and various fungal diseases, then when finally released (after extensive physiotherapy in Oregon) died of pneumonia. You're asking a bit much, if you're wanting Florida to do this to all drunk-drivers - they'd never be able to get hold of enough fungus.
The "standard" was the banner your army flew on a battlefield. Rallying around a standard meant literally doing just that - going to where your banner flew. The "standard" was not the average or the norm, it was simply a statement of being. Normally, if anything, it would be at the front of the field, leading the way. Standard-bearers tended not to have long lifespans, in those days.
However, that is the model I believe standards should follow today: "This is the point you should be reaching now", not "This is the point you should have reached last year". By this argument, standards should ALWAYS be ahead of the game - describing how to make best use of new ideas and new approaches - and should be discarded as a description of the mediocre and pitiful.
Do the standard-bearers of the past proud, and let's use standards to define the charge of technology. The ones who are stationary are not the ones who need a standard to guide them. The ones who don't care where they are are not the ones at risk of getting lost. Let standards retake their rightful place on the field - at the front.
...any country guilty of war-crimes, the kidnapping of foreign citizens for the purpose of torture and the arrest without right of trial or representation to be guilty of being a repressive dictatoriship. Sounds fair?
If yes, then America is a repressive dictatorship and it would be sheer idiocy to leave control of something like the Internet under American Government control.
If no, then most of the countries America happily labels repressive dictatorships aren't, and should be entitled to a say in the way the Internet is run.
Besides which, you should bear in mind that although America built the infrastructure that exists in America, it did NOT build the infrastructure anywhere else. Even in the early days in Britain, the Internet was carried as a service over the X.25 lines provided by British Telecom's PSS service. At the very least, those countries that built their own networks, laid their own cables, designed and installed their own routing equiptment, etc, aught to have a voice in how those lines are run.
I'd say that European Internet users probably use as much European equiptment as US hardware, if not more. Telebit, now deceased, actually beat Cisco to a fully-functional IPv6 implementation and had some very nifty virtual networking layers in their routing protocol as part of their security. They weren't the first, or the last.
Manchester's GMING (Greater Manchester Inter-Networking Group) is a metropoliton ATM-based fiber optic network with impressive throughput, with customers ranging from the five Universities to a large number of businesses and corporations in Britain's third-largest city. What business does the United States' DoD have, controlling such a network from afar? And - since ultimately some fraction of any charge for any service must go back to them - what right do they have to impose taxes but deny representation?
I seem to remember reading in history books about some people who kicked out a king who tried running their country from a vast distance. Taxes without representation seemed to play a big part in that, too. Oh, now where was it.... Can't have been America, because they're guilty as all Hell for doing exactly that! They wouldn't repeat the very crime they accused others of, would they?
The articles may be wrong, but where they are, they are DEFINITIVELY wrong. On the other hand, there are many articles that are genuinely accurate, very readable and thoroughly researched. Usually, these are for arcane subjects, obscure villages and hamlets, etc. In other words, stuff that only a very self-selecting few would ever know enough to discover the page on, never mind edit!
A case in point is the Wikipedia page on the village of Mellor, a small village that has languished on the edge of obscurity for 14,000 years and I'd swear it still had some of its original inhabitants walking around. The odds of there being more than two or three on Slashdot who have ever been there is virtually nil.
Because of the limited editing it gets, the accuracy is probably higher than normal. HOWEVER, any inaccuracy probably lasts longer than normal, for the same reason.
Pages that get edited frequently probably lose errors a lot faster, but gain new ones equally fast. In that sense, it is no different from computer programming, where rapid development cycles create as many (or more) bugs than they fix - although, they're usually different bugs the next time round.
I think Wikipedia would benefit from some sort of development cycle, where an "in progress" copy of the article is maintained, then occasionally snapshotted to create the "official" copy. For "non real-time" articles, I would suggest that pages not significantly edited for, say, 36 or 72 hours be treated as a "final revision". (A minor alteration would be the adding/removing of symbols such as commas and apostrophes.)
This would give you the "anyone can edit" freewheeling anarchy of the current system, the live, raw feel that some apparently crave, and yet also provide a version that has some semblance of consent behind it, something that maybe isn't perfect but is good enough for now. It's not exactly QA, in the usual sense, but it's still QA, in that you've got to not find any showstoppers within some deadline.
A "traditional"(!) wikipedia with deliberately de-synchronised mainstream version would probably not be the best solution, but I honestly can't think of a better one while keeping the current approach.
...is a slightly more risque version of the pre-existing Doctor Who spin-off of "Stranger and Miss Brown". And, frankly, although I believe the later episodes were trashy, I did think that some of the other Doctorish stories - like Devil of Winterborne and The Zero Imperative - were impressive for the budget.
Whether it is the new Who or the new spin-off, I would argue that if it can't manage either the tension of The Zero Imperative, the surrealness of Summoned By Shadows or the darkness of The Terror Game, then the BBC has no business producing it. For chrissakes, those were FAN FLICKS! The special effects rarely went much beyond cutting up cornflake packets. But it seems to me that they packed a hell of a lot more punch than the BBC is willing to put into their sci-fi.
Sci-fi isn't about skin - though some might have trouble believing it. It gets its power from the Universe it is set in, and if the Universe isn't worth a damn, then neither is the show. (At least as sci-fi. It might make it as a soap opera, or a comedy.)
The BBC is capable of producing science fiction that would have even the tired and jaded audiences of today shivering in terror behind the sofa. If they chose. They're more than capable of producing a drama of sufficient power and depth that the fans are cheering on the hero(s) every step of the way. If they chose.
The same is true of any other TV station. So why do none of them choose? Why is nausiating dross the ONLY diet on television these days?
IPv6 address prefixes are defined up-stream. All you need to do is remember the one byte that indicates your router. The rest is imported. As for user machines, IPv6 addresses are automatically defined as being the router prefix + the MAC address. There is absolutely nothing for an administrator to do, with IPv6 networks, besides plug in the one byte designator and kick back.
The only admins who don't like IPv6 are those who are either ignorant of the way it works, or who are too hooked on being worked to death. Both need help, treatment and beer.
Many major ISPs had some degree of roll-out nearly TEN years ago. Some of the early 6Bone maps are still on the Internet. Cisco, Bay and Telebit had some of the first IPv6 implementations nine or ten years ago. Technology has not been the problem for a very long time.
I don't know if they provide native IPv6, but they DO provide IPv6 tunnels, so if they don't provide native, it's not because they don't have the equiptment. (You think they'd provide tunnels if they didn't have the protocol enabled on their routers?)
Slashdot Mirror
...on where it kept them. The underworld is a BIG place to hide things you don't want discovered.
Depends. If it's a planet, but not counted as such, it would be a One In Ten.
Incidently, the CNN report mentions that the astronomers called them the Halloween Moons - I didn't know Eric Raymond was an astronomer!
...do even the jokes have dupes?
...it's not even official yet. The objects are believed to be orbiting Pluto, but there has been no independent confirmation they actually are, and the IAU hasn't (yet) responded to the submitted claim.
I'm sure all the other tier 1 Internet carriers will also be highly interested to learn that SBC does not support peering and holds that they have no peers. If those aren't peer-to-peer connections, then SBC is using other carriers to transport packets, which means SBC owes a lot of companies a lot of money.
In this day and age, there isn't much an individual can do against something the size of SBC. In the days of Usenet, you could at least lobby for that segment of the net to be de-peered (Comcast was the last company to suffer the humiliation) but I'm not sure enough people still use it (or even know what Usenet is) for that to make much of an impact today. With no IT union and no real collective power (libertarians may want to start reconsidering) there is no voice for the individual. It's not as if you can use some other service, since ALL Internet providers will ultimately either buy from SBC or peer with them. If you use the Internet, you use their service, you have no choice. Because source-based routing has long-since been stopped, if SBC wants to route your traffic, your traffic WILL obey. YOU don't get a choice.
This is one time a Government-run monopoly isn't such a bad thing. You can at least vote them out of power. You can't vote SBC out of anything. Geeks are voiceless and powerless - largely by their own choice - and are now being hijacked by a power-crazed money-hungry CEO. And I'm not convinced there's a damn thing anyone can do about it. Especially as megacorps tend to have politicians all bought up and packaged.
You only get an automatic pass if someone in the same class as you dies, and that's only in America. At older British Universities, you are however allowed to ask for a pint of beer and a pork pie during exams.
There's also the question of cannisters exploding... Cannisters generally don't do this - they tend to be rather boring, not even speaking much, unless there's something already happening. Cannisters will react to heat - but, like I said, a halon system should have dealt with heat sources long before they became a threat. Cannisters with explosive gasses CAN explode if the valve is leaky and there is a static discharge. But anyone leaving highly explosive substances around massive sources of static, or indeed, in containers that are faulty - well, they should expect something like this. You should generally store cannisters and gas cylinders in well-ventillated but secure locations containing no combustible materials or materials likely to pick up a static charge.
In practice, you can't go around stowing every single piece of equiptment in absolutely ideal conditions. In consequence, accidents like this are going to happen. Because they are going to happen, the important thing is to keep the impact to a minimum. A lot of effort over the years has gone, not only in building fire suppressing systems, but also in figuring out how to build structures that will contain a fire. The slower a fire can spread, the more likely it is to exhaust fuel and/or oxygen before it can find more.
Now, explosions get more problematic. Once you get explosions, there's not a whole lot even the best design can do, because you have to assume that there will be a sizable area affected. Aside from minimizing risk (through correct handling and operating procedurea) and trapping precursors (such as nearby fires, static, etc), there's not much that can be done. If you want to have a building survive explosions, you've got to design it very differently - lots of honeycombed structures that can absorb the high energies involved, for example. On the whole, though, you wouldn't design a fibre optics centre that way. Fibre isn't known for exploding. Fireworks factories SHOULD be built that way, and a lot of people killed in such explosions might well be alive if such buildings WERE built correctly for the conditions, but that's a whole different ball-game.
At present, IPv6 mobility depends on a lot of fiddly detail. However, here are some links on how IPv6 mobility works under Linux and how it is currently intended to work:
Quick summary: The user's machine registers with their home router (the home base). When they move to a different network, they notify their home router, which then sets up a transitory IP address on the remote network. The home router then cascades back up the routers the message that the fixed IP address of the mobile machine should now be routed to the transitory IP address, optimizing the routing. When an entire network moves, it notifies its home router in the same way, the only difference being that because you're migrating the router, you also migrate all of the machines attached to it - but none of the machines need to know this or be set up to handle it.
IPv6 isn't a big deal for most people. Yet. If you've a laptop with IPv6, and you are in a cafe with wireless IPv6, then you move to a bookshop with wireless IPv6, you'd carry the connection with you. No disconnects, no reconnects. If you're instant messaging, nothing is lost. If you're listening to an Internet radio station, you'd not even detect the switchover. Which is all great, but not something that's actually widespread.
NUMA allows multiple processors to access memory "non-uniformly". In other words, normal memory has to all be reachable at the same time. Everything in lock-step. NUMA allows you to get past that limitation. If you're building a cluster and want all of memory to be seen as a single thing, not lots of chunks that are disconnected from each other, it is great. For everyone else, NUMA has no particular value at this time.
PPTP is only useful if you're wanting to connect to Windows machines using some of their fancier remote-access protocols. For that, it is unbeatable. Largely because Microsoft won't talk to anything else.
HostAP is great if you've a laptop with wireless and a PC connected to DSL or cable. You can turn your PC into a Wireless Access Point and give your laptop full access to the Internet. This is generally better than using any wireless option in your DSL modem or cable modem, because those generally suck for security or reliability.
It stops your wifi link from getting hungry.
Having said all that, what exactly would South Korea lose from such a threat being carried out, anyway?
Unfortunately, the big fish in Congress are all mutant pirahnas.
In other words, the policy bans virtually everything that anyone ever actually does. It would seem to me that it is less a policy of prohibition, and more a catch-all, so that if you do something they don't like, they have a rule you are 100% guaranteed to have broken, whether or not what they didn't like actually violated the ToS.
To me, such an approach is wide open to abuse (they can do what the hell they like, when they like, to whom they like) and is the sort of approach to governance more often associated with third-world dictators. On the other hand, those companies that have clear, precise, enforced and obscenely over-the-top rules are more remeniscent of extremist Islamic nations.
Why we can't have corporations that exist in THIS century, rather than in political systems that were fashionable a few thousand years ago, is beyond me. Political systems are primitive at best, but they have at least evolved since the fall of Rome.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for programmers wanting to make money. That's a perfectly valid purpose for programming. I have substantially less sympathy for companies that peddle faulty goods - knowingly - for the purpose of making money from goods that really don't yet exist, rather than waiting until they can make that money fairly and honestly.
Sid Meier deserves sympathy and support for reputable conduct that deserves payment in kind. Take2 deserves a vacation in Siberia.
In real-life, Keiko (the Orca star of Free Willy) was kept in too small a tank after the movie, suffered crippling injuries and various fungal diseases, then when finally released (after extensive physiotherapy in Oregon) died of pneumonia. You're asking a bit much, if you're wanting Florida to do this to all drunk-drivers - they'd never be able to get hold of enough fungus.
However, that is the model I believe standards should follow today: "This is the point you should be reaching now", not "This is the point you should have reached last year". By this argument, standards should ALWAYS be ahead of the game - describing how to make best use of new ideas and new approaches - and should be discarded as a description of the mediocre and pitiful.
Do the standard-bearers of the past proud, and let's use standards to define the charge of technology. The ones who are stationary are not the ones who need a standard to guide them. The ones who don't care where they are are not the ones at risk of getting lost. Let standards retake their rightful place on the field - at the front.
If you stick the Jolly Rodger through the balloon, it deflates.
If yes, then America is a repressive dictatorship and it would be sheer idiocy to leave control of something like the Internet under American Government control.
If no, then most of the countries America happily labels repressive dictatorships aren't, and should be entitled to a say in the way the Internet is run.
Besides which, you should bear in mind that although America built the infrastructure that exists in America, it did NOT build the infrastructure anywhere else. Even in the early days in Britain, the Internet was carried as a service over the X.25 lines provided by British Telecom's PSS service. At the very least, those countries that built their own networks, laid their own cables, designed and installed their own routing equiptment, etc, aught to have a voice in how those lines are run.
I'd say that European Internet users probably use as much European equiptment as US hardware, if not more. Telebit, now deceased, actually beat Cisco to a fully-functional IPv6 implementation and had some very nifty virtual networking layers in their routing protocol as part of their security. They weren't the first, or the last.
Manchester's GMING (Greater Manchester Inter-Networking Group) is a metropoliton ATM-based fiber optic network with impressive throughput, with customers ranging from the five Universities to a large number of businesses and corporations in Britain's third-largest city. What business does the United States' DoD have, controlling such a network from afar? And - since ultimately some fraction of any charge for any service must go back to them - what right do they have to impose taxes but deny representation?
I seem to remember reading in history books about some people who kicked out a king who tried running their country from a vast distance. Taxes without representation seemed to play a big part in that, too. Oh, now where was it.... Can't have been America, because they're guilty as all Hell for doing exactly that! They wouldn't repeat the very crime they accused others of, would they?
All you need is sufficient tin foil to stop a megatonne object travelling at a few hundred miles per hour, and you should be fine.
A case in point is the Wikipedia page on the village of Mellor, a small village that has languished on the edge of obscurity for 14,000 years and I'd swear it still had some of its original inhabitants walking around. The odds of there being more than two or three on Slashdot who have ever been there is virtually nil.
Because of the limited editing it gets, the accuracy is probably higher than normal. HOWEVER, any inaccuracy probably lasts longer than normal, for the same reason.
Pages that get edited frequently probably lose errors a lot faster, but gain new ones equally fast. In that sense, it is no different from computer programming, where rapid development cycles create as many (or more) bugs than they fix - although, they're usually different bugs the next time round.
I think Wikipedia would benefit from some sort of development cycle, where an "in progress" copy of the article is maintained, then occasionally snapshotted to create the "official" copy. For "non real-time" articles, I would suggest that pages not significantly edited for, say, 36 or 72 hours be treated as a "final revision". (A minor alteration would be the adding/removing of symbols such as commas and apostrophes.)
This would give you the "anyone can edit" freewheeling anarchy of the current system, the live, raw feel that some apparently crave, and yet also provide a version that has some semblance of consent behind it, something that maybe isn't perfect but is good enough for now. It's not exactly QA, in the usual sense, but it's still QA, in that you've got to not find any showstoppers within some deadline.
A "traditional"(!) wikipedia with deliberately de-synchronised mainstream version would probably not be the best solution, but I honestly can't think of a better one while keeping the current approach.
Whether it is the new Who or the new spin-off, I would argue that if it can't manage either the tension of The Zero Imperative, the surrealness of Summoned By Shadows or the darkness of The Terror Game, then the BBC has no business producing it. For chrissakes, those were FAN FLICKS! The special effects rarely went much beyond cutting up cornflake packets. But it seems to me that they packed a hell of a lot more punch than the BBC is willing to put into their sci-fi.
Sci-fi isn't about skin - though some might have trouble believing it. It gets its power from the Universe it is set in, and if the Universe isn't worth a damn, then neither is the show. (At least as sci-fi. It might make it as a soap opera, or a comedy.)
The BBC is capable of producing science fiction that would have even the tired and jaded audiences of today shivering in terror behind the sofa. If they chose. They're more than capable of producing a drama of sufficient power and depth that the fans are cheering on the hero(s) every step of the way. If they chose.
The same is true of any other TV station. So why do none of them choose? Why is nausiating dross the ONLY diet on television these days?
The only admins who don't like IPv6 are those who are either ignorant of the way it works, or who are too hooked on being worked to death. Both need help, treatment and beer.
Many major ISPs had some degree of roll-out nearly TEN years ago. Some of the early 6Bone maps are still on the Internet. Cisco, Bay and Telebit had some of the first IPv6 implementations nine or ten years ago. Technology has not been the problem for a very long time.
I don't know if they provide native IPv6, but they DO provide IPv6 tunnels, so if they don't provide native, it's not because they don't have the equiptment. (You think they'd provide tunnels if they didn't have the protocol enabled on their routers?)