It was targeted to be hierarchical as of 1999 (when that presentation was made). That has since been abandoned, and it's now somewhat more free-form the way IPv4 is.
Somewhat, yes. But the v6 space is still very much aggregable, which simplifies routing considerably. This is specifically mentioned in RFC 3513:
Though a very simple router may have no knowledge of the internal structure of IPv6 unicast addresses, routers will more generally have knowledge of one or more of the hierarchical boundaries for the operation of routing protocols. The known boundaries will differ from router to router, depending on what positions the router holds in the routing hierarchy.
Furthermore, in the description of the structure of an IPv6 address.
The general format for IPv6 global unicast addresses is as follows: --diagram-- where the global routing prefix is a (typically hierarchically-structured) value assigned to a site (a cluster of subnets/links), the subnet ID is an identifier of a link within the site, and the interface ID is as defined in section 2.5.1.
But if you want an IPv6-capable Wireless N router, you're either going to have to look very carefully, or buy one that can load a custom firmware.
Bullshit. My OTS DIR-615 supports IPv6 out of the box, including v6 tunnel support... and, frankly, it's a piece of crap. Meanwhile, Apple's Airport has supported v6 for a long time, now.
What you say is true of old home routers still out in the field, but anything recent likely supports v6 without modification.
There's no economic incentive for an ISP to provide IPv6 unless the customers demand it
Wrong. Comcast is a perfect poster-child for an ISP that's moving to IPv6 because they absolutely *have* to. Why? Because they've exhausted 10.0.0.0/24, and they keep adding new devices.
No, if anything, it'll be the explosion in IP-connected consumer-level devices (settop and other home media devices, phones, tablets, etc) that will ultimately force the large providers to upgrade... well, unless they want to start managing carrier-grade, multi-level NAT. Mmmm... fun.
And that's completely ignoring the explosion in IP usage in countries like China and India, where IPv6 is all but mandatory. And the minute you see a billion or so customers suddenly IPv6-only, you can be damned sure that content providers will start supporting it.
Meanwhile, technologies like NAT64 and DNS64 will make real migration possible (thank you, again, Comcast), so even if content providers drag their feet, the ISPs can move forward.
I find it hard to trust your summary given you got this basic fact wrong:
A huge, flat address space implemented using multi-level caches was way beyond what you could do in a router back then.
Uhh, IPv6 *isn't* a huge flat address space. In fact, it brings back a return to hierarchical routing after it was abandoned in IPv4 for CIDR... which itself came about only because of, you guessed it, the diminutive IPv4 address space.
Hell, the reason IPv6 went hierarchical during it's initial design was specifically to relieve the load on overtaxed routers. Of course, since then, the technology has improved, so it's less of an issue, but given the size of the v6 address space, hierarchical routing makes a ton of sense, and simplifies things substantially.
You have *got* to be kidding. Whoever modded you "Interesting" needs a slap upside the head. The idea that we could substantially change the mass of the moon by mining it is so ridiculous it makes me think you must be joking.
Maybe if you're talking about VMWare. VMWare 2 took a hard left turn into "webapp" territory, and is consequently *absolutely terrible* as a workstation product. You're far better off going with VirtualBox, these days.
Nice to see you didn't read past the first sentence.
Huh, actually, I forgot to respond to that point:
If "Big and established software might get app store exceptions", that means OSX must provide some mechanism for installing software outside the app store interface, either through external media or via the web. Which seems to directly contradict what you're claiming is so inevitable.
Besides which, again, those companies are *not* going to live with the instability of the Apple review process. They're far more likely to just abandon the OSX platform entirely, as it's just not worth the trouble to find yourself relying on a third party as part of your product release process.
What makes you believe that Apple cares? Look at where their profits come from
So, what, they'll just kill the OSX server line? Eliminate their business market? Despite their growth in that space? Please, talk about ridiculous.
Frankly, I think I've figured it out: You think Steve Jobs is simultaneously a) the devil/Hitler, and b) really really fucking stupid.
You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation.
No, what it shows is that a progress tax code is insufficient on its own to solve the wealth gap problem. But did it ever occur to you that there is no silver bullet, single solution to the wealth gap problem? That there is no one, singular root cause? That a spectrum of tools might be necessary? And that one of those tools is a well-designed, progressive tax code?
No, of course not. Your world is too black-and-white for that.
And note I said "well-designed". Your little piece of "evidence" there might just be evidence that a poorly designed progressive tax code is no better than a regressive tax. And given the US government is bought and paid for by the rich, what do you want to bet the tax code isn't a terribly well-designed progressive system?
First argument is pretty solid for why they can't do it right now and probably will wait another release or two.
No, it's a solid argument for why it'll never happen. Apple relies on third parties like Microsoft and Adobe having software available for their platform, and neither of them will move to the app store.
Furthermore, in the enterprise space, the app store is an absolute non-starter. There's no way it'll even be installed on OSX workstations, let alone used for corporate application deployment, as it takes control out of the hands of IT.
Eh, even if you somehow reverse the precent set in "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad", allowing unchecked personal donations means the rich can still game the system, they just have to do it as individuals. So a corporation need only funnel their money through individuals (say, an executive PAC), and you're back to square one again.
Oh, so you're now the arbiter for what is and isn't "waste"? Let me guess, you don't use medicare, so it's waste? Same with unemployment benefits? What about the FDIC? Or the military? How about NASA or DARPA?
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.
Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.
PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.
Absolutely agreed. The anger toward tax evasion is entirely misdirected. If you want to point fingers, you can aim them straight at the supreme court, who made the decision that money == speech, and therefore bribary == simply exercising one's rights, and then proceeded to rape the corpse of the American system of democracy in their "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission" ruling.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".
Yeah... you'd be caught with a lower tax bill.
What these companies are doing is completely, perfectly, entirely legal. If you had the wherewithal, you could do it, too (assuming it made sense for your income level), and there would be no legal or financial repercussions. In short, the system is working as designed.
Don't like it? Elect a government that isn't in bed with the corporations. *shrug*
Honestly, I'm a little surprised this is a hangup for you. I rarely use the ethernet port on my laptop unless I need to do large bulk transfers, in which case I'd be perfectly happy using a USB dongle for the few times where that's necessary.
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Because...?
Come on, the least you could do is, like, actually present an argument.
I already know I'm going to get modded down to -1, Troll or -1, Flamebait for posting this
Ahh, classic. The ol' "I know I'm going to get modded down for thus, but..." insurance game... it's amazing the idiot moderators actually fall for it. *sigh*
When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it...
Wait... *why* shouldn't they contribute to it? You say that as if it's a given, but please, elaborate on this point for me.
Because it seems to me this is a classic example of a win-win situation: the users give information to Facebook, which Facebook deems valuable, and the users, in turn, receive a service they find useful.
Now, certainly people can choose whether they want to participate in that arrangement, and I can see why *you* shouldn't. But I fail to see why no one else should.
's an experiment to measure vibrations. if you are sitting on a whirling rock full of shifting matter, is that really a good place to measure the fundamental noise of space time?
Yes, I'm sure these PhD-holding theoretical physicists and the engineers involved in the project haven't considered this. Maybe you should send them an email and gift them with your deep insights.
Because thousands of companies produce software for the Mac platform, and likely have no interest in replacing their existing publishing and distribution infrastructure, whilst cutting Apple in on 30% of the profits in the process and leaving them at the whim of Apple's fickle review system, simply because Apple says so?
Besides which, it'd be completely impossible for them to lock down OSX in this way without having to utterly neuter the platform and the hardware, as there would be no other way to prevent people from unlocking the machine so they could install their own software.
Seriously, did you spend more than a couple seconds thinking about this?
Teaching underprivileged and delinquent children trades is a good thing. So lets teach them all to be locksmiths! And then lets be shocked when we don't have a stereo or TV anymore.
Yeah... that's totally an accurate analogy to describe opening up American markets to China, thus allowing them to industrialize... *snicker*
Seriously, are you a selfish, xenophobic asshole in real life, or do you just play one on Slashdot?
Yes, because Apple is totally gonna take away the ability to buy OTS software, or to install software downloaded straight from the internet...::rollseyes::
We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower.
Yes, god forbid a nation of largely impoverished subsistence farmers should be allowed to climb into the 20th century. Gotta protect the American empire, after all, even if it means a few billion people keep on starving...
Slashdot Mirror
It was targeted to be hierarchical as of 1999 (when that presentation was made). That has since been abandoned, and it's now somewhat more free-form the way IPv4 is.
Somewhat, yes. But the v6 space is still very much aggregable, which simplifies routing considerably. This is specifically mentioned in RFC 3513:
Furthermore, in the description of the structure of an IPv6 address.
But if you want an IPv6-capable Wireless N router, you're either going to have to look very carefully, or buy one that can load a custom firmware.
Bullshit. My OTS DIR-615 supports IPv6 out of the box, including v6 tunnel support... and, frankly, it's a piece of crap. Meanwhile, Apple's Airport has supported v6 for a long time, now.
What you say is true of old home routers still out in the field, but anything recent likely supports v6 without modification.
There's no economic incentive for an ISP to provide IPv6 unless the customers demand it
Wrong. Comcast is a perfect poster-child for an ISP that's moving to IPv6 because they absolutely *have* to. Why? Because they've exhausted 10.0.0.0/24, and they keep adding new devices.
No, if anything, it'll be the explosion in IP-connected consumer-level devices (settop and other home media devices, phones, tablets, etc) that will ultimately force the large providers to upgrade... well, unless they want to start managing carrier-grade, multi-level NAT. Mmmm... fun.
And that's completely ignoring the explosion in IP usage in countries like China and India, where IPv6 is all but mandatory. And the minute you see a billion or so customers suddenly IPv6-only, you can be damned sure that content providers will start supporting it.
Meanwhile, technologies like NAT64 and DNS64 will make real migration possible (thank you, again, Comcast), so even if content providers drag their feet, the ISPs can move forward.
I find it hard to trust your summary given you got this basic fact wrong:
A huge, flat address space implemented using multi-level caches was way beyond what you could do in a router back then.
Uhh, IPv6 *isn't* a huge flat address space. In fact, it brings back a return to hierarchical routing after it was abandoned in IPv4 for CIDR... which itself came about only because of, you guessed it, the diminutive IPv4 address space.
Hell, the reason IPv6 went hierarchical during it's initial design was specifically to relieve the load on overtaxed routers. Of course, since then, the technology has improved, so it's less of an issue, but given the size of the v6 address space, hierarchical routing makes a ton of sense, and simplifies things substantially.
You have *got* to be kidding. Whoever modded you "Interesting" needs a slap upside the head. The idea that we could substantially change the mass of the moon by mining it is so ridiculous it makes me think you must be joking.
Maybe if you're talking about VMWare. VMWare 2 took a hard left turn into "webapp" territory, and is consequently *absolutely terrible* as a workstation product. You're far better off going with VirtualBox, these days.
Jeep has long needed a product that could really compete with Hummer in the lucrative douchebag demographic. It seems they've found that product.
Nice to see you didn't read past the first sentence.
Huh, actually, I forgot to respond to that point:
If "Big and established software might get app store exceptions", that means OSX must provide some mechanism for installing software outside the app store interface, either through external media or via the web. Which seems to directly contradict what you're claiming is so inevitable.
Besides which, again, those companies are *not* going to live with the instability of the Apple review process. They're far more likely to just abandon the OSX platform entirely, as it's just not worth the trouble to find yourself relying on a third party as part of your product release process.
What makes you believe that Apple cares? Look at where their profits come from
So, what, they'll just kill the OSX server line? Eliminate their business market? Despite their growth in that space? Please, talk about ridiculous.
Frankly, I think I've figured it out: You think Steve Jobs is simultaneously a) the devil/Hitler, and b) really really fucking stupid.
You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation.
No, what it shows is that a progress tax code is insufficient on its own to solve the wealth gap problem. But did it ever occur to you that there is no silver bullet, single solution to the wealth gap problem? That there is no one, singular root cause? That a spectrum of tools might be necessary? And that one of those tools is a well-designed, progressive tax code?
No, of course not. Your world is too black-and-white for that.
And note I said "well-designed". Your little piece of "evidence" there might just be evidence that a poorly designed progressive tax code is no better than a regressive tax. And given the US government is bought and paid for by the rich, what do you want to bet the tax code isn't a terribly well-designed progressive system?
First argument is pretty solid for why they can't do it right now and probably will wait another release or two.
No, it's a solid argument for why it'll never happen. Apple relies on third parties like Microsoft and Adobe having software available for their platform, and neither of them will move to the app store.
Furthermore, in the enterprise space, the app store is an absolute non-starter. There's no way it'll even be installed on OSX workstations, let alone used for corporate application deployment, as it takes control out of the hands of IT.
Eh, even if you somehow reverse the precent set in "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad", allowing unchecked personal donations means the rich can still game the system, they just have to do it as individuals. So a corporation need only funnel their money through individuals (say, an executive PAC), and you're back to square one again.
Oh, so you're now the arbiter for what is and isn't "waste"? Let me guess, you don't use medicare, so it's waste? Same with unemployment benefits? What about the FDIC? Or the military? How about NASA or DARPA?
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.
Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.
PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.
What I don't like are people cheating the system
So apparently you define "cheating the system" as taking advantage of tax breaks.
I take it you don't claim any tax deductions, whatsoever, during your yearly filing?
Absolutely agreed. The anger toward tax evasion is entirely misdirected. If you want to point fingers, you can aim them straight at the supreme court, who made the decision that money == speech, and therefore bribary == simply exercising one's rights, and then proceeded to rape the corpse of the American system of democracy in their "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission" ruling.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".
Yeah... you'd be caught with a lower tax bill.
What these companies are doing is completely, perfectly, entirely legal. If you had the wherewithal, you could do it, too (assuming it made sense for your income level), and there would be no legal or financial repercussions. In short, the system is working as designed.
Don't like it? Elect a government that isn't in bed with the corporations. *shrug*
Eh, USB ethernet dongle. Problem == solved.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised this is a hangup for you. I rarely use the ethernet port on my laptop unless I need to do large bulk transfers, in which case I'd be perfectly happy using a USB dongle for the few times where that's necessary.
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Because...?
Come on, the least you could do is, like, actually present an argument.
I already know I'm going to get modded down to -1, Troll or -1, Flamebait for posting this
Ahh, classic. The ol' "I know I'm going to get modded down for thus, but..." insurance game... it's amazing the idiot moderators actually fall for it. *sigh*
When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it...
Wait... *why* shouldn't they contribute to it? You say that as if it's a given, but please, elaborate on this point for me.
Because it seems to me this is a classic example of a win-win situation: the users give information to Facebook, which Facebook deems valuable, and the users, in turn, receive a service they find useful.
Now, certainly people can choose whether they want to participate in that arrangement, and I can see why *you* shouldn't. But I fail to see why no one else should.
's an experiment to measure vibrations. if you are sitting on a whirling rock full of shifting matter, is that really a good place to measure the fundamental noise of space time?
Yes, I'm sure these PhD-holding theoretical physicists and the engineers involved in the project haven't considered this. Maybe you should send them an email and gift them with your deep insights.
Because, historically, it usually turns out to be correct.
Citation needed (evidentally not for idiot moderators, though).
Why wouldn't they?
Because thousands of companies produce software for the Mac platform, and likely have no interest in replacing their existing publishing and distribution infrastructure, whilst cutting Apple in on 30% of the profits in the process and leaving them at the whim of Apple's fickle review system, simply because Apple says so?
Besides which, it'd be completely impossible for them to lock down OSX in this way without having to utterly neuter the platform and the hardware, as there would be no other way to prevent people from unlocking the machine so they could install their own software.
Seriously, did you spend more than a couple seconds thinking about this?
Teaching underprivileged and delinquent children trades is a good thing. So lets teach them all to be locksmiths! And then lets be shocked when we don't have a stereo or TV anymore.
Yeah... that's totally an accurate analogy to describe opening up American markets to China, thus allowing them to industrialize... *snicker*
Seriously, are you a selfish, xenophobic asshole in real life, or do you just play one on Slashdot?
Yes, because Apple is totally gonna take away the ability to buy OTS software, or to install software downloaded straight from the internet... ::rollseyes::
We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower.
Yes, god forbid a nation of largely impoverished subsistence farmers should be allowed to climb into the 20th century. Gotta protect the American empire, after all, even if it means a few billion people keep on starving...