Yup, you're almost certainly right. But I wouldn't be averse to Flash being pushed more into the margins, and if the iPhone and iPad help that happen, great! Meanwhile, for some of those niche applications, like Hulu, a custom-written app for the device is probably a better solution than an embedded flash player, anyway.
yea, because there are millions of factories slaughtering cattle and chickens, WE SHOULD DO MORE AND CLUB SEALS IN THE HEAD. why ?
Ah, you never read the last sentence of my post. Go back and try again. Wait, nevermind, I'll reiterate it: You're a fucking hypocrite, and your statement was idiotic. That's it, that's all. No attempt to justify. I was simply pointing out that the sentence you wrote was based on lies, ignorance, and stupidity.
Meanwhile, maybe try not drinking so much fucking PETA kool-aid. A little food for thought:
In 2005, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) commissioned the Independent Veterinarians Working Group Report. With reference to video evidence, the report states: "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death."[91]
But, yeah, I'm sure the WWF is just a group of corporate shills. What do they know, right?
The general view is that flash is a relatively closed format (yeah, it's an open spec, but let's face it, no one else has a player comparable to Adobe's implementation), based on a patented codec, wrapped up with a rather annoying DRM layer.
Personally, my view is that flash is simply annoying... it's slow, clunky, sucks up CPU time, interacts poorly with the mouse and keyboard, is only barely cross-platform (let's face it, Linux gets the short end of the Flash stick) and is generally less elegant than an integrated browser solution. Well, at least for video (I never play flash games, so if it sticks around in that niche, hey, so be it).
and currently you canadians are the only 'developed' country which insists on continuing brutal traditions of the past.
Really?? Wow, interesting.
So, you're saying there are no more factory farms elsewhere in the world killing hundreds of millions of cattle and chickens every year? There are no more hunters and fishermen, anywhere, killing animals simply for sport? That puppy mills and similar disgusting practices are now a thing of the past? That whales, dolphins, and sharks, are no longer killed every year to satisfy asian consumption?
I'm sure I could go on, but I hope you see how *completely fucking ridiculous* your statement is.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not trying to justify the yearly seal hunt, here (though I agree with the GP that the outrage is based on misinformation and lies rather than real, honest facts), but rather trying to point out the utter hypocrisy of your position.
Just to provide a bit more substance, the idea is that, at the event horizon of the black hole, pairs of virtual particles pop into existence, and sometimes, one of them will fall into the black hole while the other will be radiated away, carrying energy away from the black hole, causing it to lose mass. And the smaller the black hole, the faster this happens, so your average microscopic black hole has an exceedingly short lifetime.
Couple that short lifetime with the fact that, at the scale of these black holes, matter is primarily space, and composed of particles far larger than the black hole itself, and the chance of one of these black holes gaining mass through interactions with normal matter is essentially nil.
Well, now, to be fair, the LHC is only up to half power at this point.
Of course, the idea that we'll be swallowed up by a black hole is still utterly absurd. But our current and ongoing existence is, unfortunately, not sufficient evidenced to completely disprove the cranks.
See the AC. He explains it very nicely, so I won't bother.
Honestly, how stupid do you think physicists are? They came up with the idea of dark matter *specifically* to deal with galactic rotational curves. You really don't think they put a little thought into local effects? Please...
This is just classic Slashdotter arrogance. You somehow think you've achieved a brilliant insight that people who've spent decades specializing in the field somehow failed to notice.
And yet, for all that you know about the evidence that you have seen, you still haven't explained how MOND or other alternatives to dark matter can explain the results that I've cited, results which are accepted by most of the physics community as supporting dark matter while ruling out MOND. I mean, it's not like you can just cherrypick the results to fit your theory. You gotta explain them all.
So please, if you have citations or other references which explain how MOND can be altered to fit the latest results (the galaxy collision results, in particular, are difficult for MOND, as they show weak lensing where no visible matter is present, which is tough to explain when the basis of your theory is to alter how gravity works, given that gravity requires, you know, matter), I'd be curious to see them, because, at least AFAICT, it's just not possible unless you allow for *some* form of dark matter.
If you had bothered to read my other comments, you might have found out something yourself.
I've read those comments. None of them appear to provide any evidence to either invalidate these and related findings, or provide a mechanism by which MOND or other theories could be altered to fit current observations.
Just how much do you know about the evidence I have seen anyway? You seem to believe you are an expert on the matter.
Well, judging by your comments, you certainly are. So, please, explain to me how the Bullet Cluster and galaxy collision results (among other things) can be explained by MOND. And once you've done that, please, publish a paper, as I'm sure the physics community will be very interested to hear about your findings given that actual experts on the topic can't seem to manage it.
You present as evidence exactly the same sort of imaging techniques that were used to make the image in question? That's really lame.
No it isn't. It's incontrovertible evidence. Or do you have proof that the methodology is faulty (despite the results agreeing with other sorts of data, such as WMAP)?
There are alternative theories, such as MoND, that might explain this
No, there aren't. Even MOND proponents have admitted that *some* form of weakly interacting matter is *required* to explain the galaxy collision results. Seriously, get your learn on, your information is *way* out of date.
Most "evidence" I have seen that is supposed to support the Dark Matter theory tends to also support the alternative theories.
No, it really doesn't. Seriously. Learn a little before making yourself sound like a fool. Here, I'll even help you:
The leading relativistic MOND theory, proposed by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004 is called TeVeS for Tensor-Vector-Scalar and solves many of the problems of earlier attempts. However, a study in August 2006 reported an observation of a pair of colliding galaxy clusters whose behavior, it was claimed, was not compatible with any current modified gravity theories.[27] In 2007, John W. Moffat proposed a theory of modified gravity (MOG) based on the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of colliding galaxies.[59] This theory still requires the presence of non-relativistic neutrinos (another candidate for (cold) dark matter) to work.
Actually, it does exist. Frankly, I'm fucking sick of posting the same links over and over, so why don't you just go to Wikipedia and read about the Bullet Cluster. There is simply no question, now, even among MOND proponents: there is weakly interacting matter out there, and we have no idea what it is.
So, are you trolling, or are you really not aware that the jury is in and that dark matter has beenconfirmed (and more importantly, that MOND without any kind of weakly interacting matter has been ruled out)?
The Voodoo card did texturing in hardware and the GeForce did transform and lighting as well, but these were just accelerating parts of the fixed-function pipeline. You used the same programming model with and without this acceleration, it just made your code run faster. With pixel and vertex shaders, you had two separate code paths, one for the fixed-function pipeline and one with shaders. This was a bit more effort, but you were mainly using the shaders to do the same thing as the fixed-function pipeline, just with a few more special effects. With geometry and compute shaders, you can generate a lot of your data on the GPU. Writing fall-back code basically means either writing the engine twice or not using the new hardware to anything close to its full potential.
Yeah, but if all this is true (and I'm no game programmer, so I'm going to have to take your word for it), then what I'm hearing is that you *can't* write a game that takes advantage of these amazing new features in DX11 while remaining compatible with the vast majority of the market that still only has DX9- and DX10-compatible cards, unless you plan to write two completely independent rendering pipelines.
As such, I fail to see how one can blame the consoles, here. After all, all those people with DX10-compatible video cards in their PCs are every bit as much of a problem for those developers. The real problem is that the rendering model for DX11 is so different that, unless you want to write two pipelines, your choice is target DX11 and leave out a huge chunk of of the PC market *and* the console market, or just target DX10.
*snicker* Well, we'll agree to disagree.:) But on this point:
Well, you're still assuming the ostensible motive...
Again... quit being a paranoid jackass. Seriously. Just because you don't like the approach, and evidentally don't like Google, doesn't mean this scheme must necessarily be motivated by some secret, nefarious secondary purpose.
Honestly, I've never understood why people, when faced with an idea they don't like or can't understand, just fall back to deriding the source of the idea. You sound like a Republican attacking healthcare reform. It can't be that they simply disagree. No no. It must be an evil socialist plot to take over the lives of every American.
It's totally absurd, and you really need to try and back up and get a little perspective. Honestly.
Sorry, what? The video illustrates how an ISP arrived at the stage of providing good native consumer IPv6. Yet Google, which has done no such thing for any consumer, thought his efforts not good enough when he tried to get whitelisted.
Yup, I understand that. Google treated them the same way they treat every random ISP on the street, with suspicion, because so many ISPs have gotten IPv6 wrong.
Again, the ISPs have made this bed. This guy may be one of the shining lights, but he's in an industry that's just barely competent enough to keep a regular v4 network up and alive. You can hardly blame Google for doing their diligence.
Google has done less for IPv6 than this guy's ISP has. They have:
And yet, v6 has still gone nowhere, despite all his evangelizing. Which is, I'm sure, quite frustrating. But the simple fact is, v6 ain't goin' nowhere unless there's content. And that guy isn't providing content. So while I applaud his efforts, him, and people like him, aren't going to be the sole reason v6 finally gets real adoption. It's gonna be a concerted effort between ISPs *and* content providers, and this scheme finally has a chance of getting content providers onboard.
Google don't seem interested in actually deploying IPv6, and reject businesses such as his which are at the forefront of consumer IPv6 deployment.
Oh come on, quit being so dramatic. Google never rejected anyone. Did they make those guys go through a bunch of hoops? Yes, they did. But the guy flat out stated that he expects to close a peering agreement with Google.
And as for claiming Google "don't seem interested in actually deploying IPv6", that's just bullshit. Clearly they are, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered rolling out YouTube and all their other services over v6, nor would they have set up peering arrangements with HE, this ISP you cited, and I'm sure others. And they wouldn't be working on this whitelisting scheme now.
But what they're *not* interested in is adversely affecting their massive, existing customer base. And can you really blame them? I can't.
No, you just don't like how Google is going about it. And that's fine. But don't attribute malice or incompetence to an approach you simply disagree with.
Google, in its control freakery, should not step so cautiously, and absolutely must not encourage the rest of the Internet world to do so.
Dude, the rest of the Internet world is *already are being that cautious*! Don't you see? Content providers *already* refuse to deploy v6 because of these issues. They're *already* too scared of the customer backlash. The only way to get them past those fears is to provide some kind of guarantee that their end users won't be impacted. The proposed scheme has a chance of doing that.
If Google really wanted to make a difference, it would follow JANET's lead into properly documenting and cooperating with ISPs in implementing IPv6 multicast, and use its resources to showcase other IPv6 goodies. If Google really wanted to make a difference it could add AAAA records at some stage with a notice passing people to a legacy.google.com for people with fucked up IPv6 connectivity (which could be for any number of reasons/other than a nasty ISP-provided router/).
Bah, that's just totally unrealistic.
If I understand you correctly, the "proper" way to finally get v6 deployed is to find a way to showcase technologies that take advantage of unique v6 features (of which multicast and end-to-end connectivity are really the only ones that would concern the end user). But, once again, this is a chicken-and-egg problem. People won't build new, exciting applications on top of v6 technology if there's no one out there to use those damned applications in the first place.
Still, you make a legitimate point. It is certainly true that Google could probably do more to evangelize v6. Simply deploying it isn't enough to really get users interested in the topic. I'm
What about it? That video just illustrates precisely what this coalition is trying to deploy, as Google has been doing this for a while now. Again, is it annoying for the ISP? Yeah. I just don't care, that's all.
Frankly, I find it funny that guy doesn't understand why Google is being so cautious. Then again, he isn't in the business of making money based on eyeballs. Google, meanwhile, stands to lose real dollars if someone decides to, say, switch to Bing because Google's AAAA records cause that person's network connection to seemingly slow to a crawl while they're trying to perform a search.
No, it's just a few loud providers who made little effort deploying IPv6 in the first place.
Good lord, you've *got* to be kidding. Google has done more to push v6 than virtually any other content provider out there. And I'm actually a little shocked NetFlix is on board.
Do you have any *better* examples of content providers getting onboard? 'cuz god knows I don't, specifically because of issues like this.
So we have to do X, and they get switched over to more experimental alternatives, rather than having a choice?
Buh? If the users want access to the v6 network, then this is what the ISPs need to do. What is this "choice" you're referring to? Because last I checked, users would have a choice: run dual-stack or don't.
What are you talking about? They'll have to do that to get native IPv6.
But these users that are affected by this issue have *no idea* how they're connected to the internet. They didn't seek out v6 connectivity. That wasn't on their list of shit to deploy this week. The whole point is that mom happens to be running a v6-capable router ('cuz that's what they sold at Best Buy), and it turns out that that the router or ISP is broken in some way. Mom didn't go out to *get* v6 connectivity. It just happened.
So now you're saying that, to fix this problem, we should expect those consumers to go upgrade their routers? It's just not gonna happen (outside the normal obsolescence cycle).
Google's scheme tackles one of these problems badly, with a more reliable and no less useful result coming from simply refusing their offer entirely.
I disagree. This scheme at least makes it possible for content providers to start deploying v6 right now, without adversely affecting their existing customer base, while simultaneously transparently enabling v6 for those users who have an ISP that's on the ball (thanks to Google's agreement with HE, for example, www.google.com has AAAA records if you're connected to my network, so anyone using my wifi can transparently access Google's services over the v6 web, and they have *no idea it's even happening*).
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree, it's not a perfect solution. But, let's face it, v6 is horribly stalled out right now, and unless content providers start populating the v6 web, it'll continue to go nowhere fast, and content providers won't get on the ball as long as v6 connectivity is broken for a financially significant fraction of their userbase.
Incidentally, I strongly suspect this is also very temporary. After all, I really doubt the providers *want* to have to run this fucking thing, as there is non-trivial administrative overhead. But for now, at least it allows content providers to start providing v6 content to users without expecting them to use silly domain name hacks (come on, an ipv6-specific subdomain? There's a great way to ensure no one hits your v6-enabled site).
As an aside, I do appreciate this (incredibly extended) conversation... it's an interesting subject, and you've certainly got a valid set of points. I just honestly don't believe that your transition scheme can actually work in the real world (god knows it hasn't over the last, what, 10 years?), which leaves few options for moving forward (although, hey, if you can think of something else, I'd be curious to hear it).
I was stating that 0.8% of people being bothered isn't a reason to create some massive scheme
Clearly the content providers who'd be losing those users completely disagree with you. And given it's their money and their content, and given their reluctance to deploy v6 is one of the primary reasons v6 is going nowhere, it probably makes sense to listen to their needs and attempt to address them. This scheme does that.
Only if your idea of deployment is "add AAAA records then go home", which is a crap approach and not at all like the one I suggested.
Yeah, but again, your scheme has been considered. It's been found wanting.
So, yes, you could cover your ears, keep yelling "la la la, my idea is better", or you could just admit that something new is needed, as v6 is clearly stuck.
you're expecting every ISP to submit DNS server details to Google and be at the mercy of *their* testing service to enable the ability of all their users to make use of an Internet protocol. That's a horrible precedent.
Yes. Tough. Honestly, I just don't care if it's inconvenient for the ISPs. They've already proven they are unwilling to roll out v6 in any sort of meaningful way. So if they can't be trusted, well, then Google and the other content providers are gonna have to start babysitting them until they can get their shit in gear.
Also, what about people who use OpenDNS or any other number of DNS servers, such as Google's own?
Tough. Either that or OpenDNS needs to talk to the whitelist management to get an exemption for their service (odds are people who are using OpenDNS are a minority, and so they might not care if a few OpenDNS users with b0rked v6 connections suddenly see major slowdowns). Or you just live with browsing the v4 web. *shrug*
Sigh. The IPv6-ready home router would do that for you. If you were tunneling, the tunneling setup software you install would do it for you.
So you want to fix this issue by... having everyone affected go out and buy new routers?
Now who's thinking like an engineer?
The *entire point* is that broken hardware is out there and there's no impetus to get it replaced, as the content providers refuse to advertise AAAA records... because there's all that broken hardware out there. So, yeah, if you could magically fix all the broken gear and get IPV6-ready routers in everyone's houses, the problem would go away. But, of course, that ain't gonna happen.
The Internet is regularly broken for.8% of users for a multitude of reasons.
That's a BS argument, though. The "internet" isn't broken for these people. IPv6 is broken for these people. If a content provider deploys IPv6, suddenly a *new* 0.8% of internet users will be highly annoyed trying to access their site. So, from a content provider's perspective, they can either inconvenience that.8% of users for no real appreciable gain in the short term, or they could just not bother.
The third option is this one: selectively make v6 available to ISPs who guarantee connectivity.
All that's needed is a few bigger players to offer two alternative sites, as above, and to perhaps give perks for IPv6 - hopefully/using/ the advantages of IPv6, such as working multicasting for bandwidth-efficient live media streaming, or IPv6sec, or any number of things that are easier without NAT.
But that's already been tried! Hell, Google's been running ipv6.google.com for *years*. But IPv6 adoption *still* isn't happening. So, yes, we could keep going with your plan, ensuring that v6 will never get out the door, or we can finally admit that transition scheme simply doesn't work, and try something different.
Information and control. I mean, if it's no bother, I'll volunteer to be the guy who aims to get a list of every ISP on the planet, an accurate database of addresses actually used by its customers, and an implied statement of willingness to submit data to my database
Umm, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even understand how this scheme works? Apparently not.
Here, let me explain how Google does it (presumably this larger-scale whitelist will work the same way): ISP goes to Google and says "I'm v6 ready!". Google says to ISP "aight, sweet, let's test it out." Google verifies it works. Now Google configures their DNS servers to return AAAA records to the ISP DNS server. Now anyone in the ISP's network using the ISP's DNS servers will get AAAA records for Google's services.
Nowhere in this scheme does Google need a list of IP addresses from the ISP.
Seriously, where'd you get the idea that they'd need a IP list?
Irrelevant. The local router/gateway does the requesting - it could be an IPv6 DNS client and an IPv4 DNS server (although tbh I'm not quiet sure what's being whitelisted anyway here, as it's the ISP's DNS server that's going to be seen by the content provider).
Oh come on, you and I both know that most people don't have a local DNS cache that can submit the requests over v6. We're talking about your grandma, here, not a computer geek running their own FreeBSD firewall.
The problem of ISPs distributing broken routers which manage to advertise a prefix which they aren't ever issued with? Perhaps you aren't sure yourself, since you haven't been able to name one router which exhibits the problem, but you're not making it clear what actually goes wrong and why the solution isn't to fix the problem (of distributing broken routers) rather than one huge bureaucratic bandaid.
Because the whitelist is feasible? The alternative is to break connectivity for (according to these folks).8% of users while those broken routers are fixed/replaced.
Besides which, without v6 content, there is no reason to fix broken hardware. And if the broke hardware isn't fixed, content providers won't roll out v6. It's the same chicken-and-egg problem v6 has been stalled over for years. The difference is, this whitelist solution actually has a chance of fixing it.
If you regard negotiating with every ISP as "voila... problem solved", you are more engineer than the real world will allow for.
If the guys running the whitelist are willing to go through that effort, who cares? Does it solve the problem? Yes. Is it complicated? Certainly. But at least it has a chance of succeeding.
I've already heard many people whine about IPv6 slowing down their machine. It's usually to do with a small amount of time wasted by failing at looking up an AAAA record before moving onto the A record, and nothing to do with finding an AAAA record and trying to access it. The AAAA lookup, as far as I can recally, happens when the system supports IPv6 rather than only when the system has a routable IPv6 address, which is daft.
Yeah, agreed, that's definitely an issue. In fact, glibc used to do that for a long time (fortunately that issue is fixed... I believe now it only attempts AAAA resolution if the host has a routable v6 address).
And I certainly agree with you that there are likely *many* reasons why advertising AAAA records has caused headaches for end hosts, not the least of which is broken v6 stacks (as previously alluded to). But broken routing is, at least as far as I can tell, a well known issue with v6, and I really can't blame the content providers for attempting to search for a solution to this issue.
I suggested that the ISPs aren't being honest about why they want the whitelist.
So what do you think the real reason is? Either it's to fix v6 connectivity issues, or there's some other reason. Why do you propose that reason is?
If I'm Joe provider, I can return AAAA records if you're using my DNS server via IPv6, or A records if you're using it via IPv4. And, if I'm an ISP, I'll send the customer appropriate A-sending or AAAA-sending server addresses depending on how you're connecting, without you having to worry. Why will this not happen, unless you don't want it to? I need more information.
Probably because there's *still* some OSes that don't support DNS resolution over IPv6? Heck, even glibc is known to have issues with this configuration.
I don't think Google or NetFlix are stupid - I think they're top performing businesses. Why would I therefore assume that their solution to a problem is the best solution for anyone but Google or NetFlix?
No idea, I don't have one. All I know is that searches like this indicate it's a real problem for some (well, or, at least, they think it is...).
Though, I must admit, the fact that I can't find specific model numbers is rather... suspicious (I assume it was some model(s) of D-Link, Linksys, etc, router). ie, people definitely blame the routers in various discussion forums, but I've never seen any one router pinned down as a problem. So I could be mistaken. Though the conclusion is often the same: they disable v6, and their problems go away.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise in this signal that can make it tough to pin down where the real problems lie. For example, one issue that has definitely bitten people was a bug in glibc where it would attempt to resolve to find a AAAA record for a host before falling back to A, even though the box didn't have v6 connectivity. This kind of issue could easily be blamed on a router, when it's actually a software bug (that, thankfully, is fixed, AFAIK).
Very interesting... I have an IPv6 tunnel from HE and I'd like to get that working as well. Is it as simple as pointing your resolver at HE's DNS servers? If so, what are their addresses?
Yup! That's all it takes. Just head to the "Tunnel Details" page for your HE tunnel. On that page is an "Available DNS Resolvers" section, which includes a v4 and a v6 address for their DNS server. Use that as your primary, and voila, you'll get AAAA records for most (all?) of Google's services.
*You* don't get on the whitelist. Your ISP gets on the whitelist, by demonstrating they have functional v6 network connectivity. Once that's done, the ISP is added to the whitelist, and thereafter, any DNS records resolved using the ISPs DNS servers will include AAAA records from participating content providers.
For example, Hurricane Electric entered just this sort of agreement with Google. As such, anyone using HE's DNS servers get Google's AAAA records, and so because I use HE as my tunnel broker, I get access to Google via v6. However, Google knows nothing about me in particular.
Which routers are these, and why is the correct procedure to maintain a massive whitelist (requiring ISP cooperation) rather than negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6 (requiring ISP cooperation)?
I'm afraid I can't give you specific model numbers, but this is a very well known problem amongst content providers mulling the idea of rolling out v6. And we're talking home routers, here, not ISP core routers.
And the whitelist *is* "negotiating with ISPs"... ie, they negotiate, the ISP sets up v6, and voila, they're on the whitelist. Problem solved.
The problem of hundreds of sites advertising AAAA records which timeout?
There are enough that it's noticeable, yes. Did you do the Google search? I bet you didn't. Maybe you should research the issue before dismissing it out of hand, eh?
If you think I'm wrong, you could have said all that you've said without that sentence.
You suggested that these provides had some ulterior motive for wanting this whitelist, and that the whole v6 thing was a coverup. That sounds pretty paranoid to me.
Or, since we're breaking the universality of DNS, why don't we only respond with AAAA records if a nameserver's talking over IPv6?
Because the *vast* majority of DNS traffic is, and will continue to be for the near future, performed over v4, even if the client is v6 enabled. Hell, I have an HE tunnel right now, and I use v4 to resolve DNS records.
Honestly, if you don't agree with the solution to this problem, fine, so be it. But at least do a little research. This is a very real problem requiring a real solution. Or do you *really* think Google and NetFlix are just too stupid to realize how right you are?
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, you're almost certainly right. But I wouldn't be averse to Flash being pushed more into the margins, and if the iPhone and iPad help that happen, great! Meanwhile, for some of those niche applications, like Hulu, a custom-written app for the device is probably a better solution than an embedded flash player, anyway.
yea, because there are millions of factories slaughtering cattle and chickens, WE SHOULD DO MORE AND CLUB SEALS IN THE HEAD. why ?
Ah, you never read the last sentence of my post. Go back and try again. Wait, nevermind, I'll reiterate it: You're a fucking hypocrite, and your statement was idiotic. That's it, that's all. No attempt to justify. I was simply pointing out that the sentence you wrote was based on lies, ignorance, and stupidity.
Meanwhile, maybe try not drinking so much fucking PETA kool-aid. A little food for thought:
But, yeah, I'm sure the WWF is just a group of corporate shills. What do they know, right?
The general view is that flash is a relatively closed format (yeah, it's an open spec, but let's face it, no one else has a player comparable to Adobe's implementation), based on a patented codec, wrapped up with a rather annoying DRM layer.
Personally, my view is that flash is simply annoying... it's slow, clunky, sucks up CPU time, interacts poorly with the mouse and keyboard, is only barely cross-platform (let's face it, Linux gets the short end of the Flash stick) and is generally less elegant than an integrated browser solution. Well, at least for video (I never play flash games, so if it sticks around in that niche, hey, so be it).
and currently you canadians are the only 'developed' country which insists on continuing brutal traditions of the past.
Really?? Wow, interesting.
So, you're saying there are no more factory farms elsewhere in the world killing hundreds of millions of cattle and chickens every year? There are no more hunters and fishermen, anywhere, killing animals simply for sport? That puppy mills and similar disgusting practices are now a thing of the past? That whales, dolphins, and sharks, are no longer killed every year to satisfy asian consumption?
I'm sure I could go on, but I hope you see how *completely fucking ridiculous* your statement is.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not trying to justify the yearly seal hunt, here (though I agree with the GP that the outrage is based on misinformation and lies rather than real, honest facts), but rather trying to point out the utter hypocrisy of your position.
Just to provide a bit more substance, the idea is that, at the event horizon of the black hole, pairs of virtual particles pop into existence, and sometimes, one of them will fall into the black hole while the other will be radiated away, carrying energy away from the black hole, causing it to lose mass. And the smaller the black hole, the faster this happens, so your average microscopic black hole has an exceedingly short lifetime.
Couple that short lifetime with the fact that, at the scale of these black holes, matter is primarily space, and composed of particles far larger than the black hole itself, and the chance of one of these black holes gaining mass through interactions with normal matter is essentially nil.
Well, now, to be fair, the LHC is only up to half power at this point.
Of course, the idea that we'll be swallowed up by a black hole is still utterly absurd. But our current and ongoing existence is, unfortunately, not sufficient evidenced to completely disprove the cranks.
See the AC. He explains it very nicely, so I won't bother.
Honestly, how stupid do you think physicists are? They came up with the idea of dark matter *specifically* to deal with galactic rotational curves. You really don't think they put a little thought into local effects? Please...
This is just classic Slashdotter arrogance. You somehow think you've achieved a brilliant insight that people who've spent decades specializing in the field somehow failed to notice.
And yet, for all that you know about the evidence that you have seen, you still haven't explained how MOND or other alternatives to dark matter can explain the results that I've cited, results which are accepted by most of the physics community as supporting dark matter while ruling out MOND. I mean, it's not like you can just cherrypick the results to fit your theory. You gotta explain them all.
So please, if you have citations or other references which explain how MOND can be altered to fit the latest results (the galaxy collision results, in particular, are difficult for MOND, as they show weak lensing where no visible matter is present, which is tough to explain when the basis of your theory is to alter how gravity works, given that gravity requires, you know, matter), I'd be curious to see them, because, at least AFAICT, it's just not possible unless you allow for *some* form of dark matter.
If you had bothered to read my other comments, you might have found out something yourself.
I've read those comments. None of them appear to provide any evidence to either invalidate these and related findings, or provide a mechanism by which MOND or other theories could be altered to fit current observations.
Just how much do you know about the evidence I have seen anyway? You seem to believe you are an expert on the matter.
Well, judging by your comments, you certainly are. So, please, explain to me how the Bullet Cluster and galaxy collision results (among other things) can be explained by MOND. And once you've done that, please, publish a paper, as I'm sure the physics community will be very interested to hear about your findings given that actual experts on the topic can't seem to manage it.
You present as evidence exactly the same sort of imaging techniques that were used to make the image in question? That's really lame.
No it isn't. It's incontrovertible evidence. Or do you have proof that the methodology is faulty (despite the results agreeing with other sorts of data, such as WMAP)?
There are alternative theories, such as MoND, that might explain this
No, there aren't. Even MOND proponents have admitted that *some* form of weakly interacting matter is *required* to explain the galaxy collision results. Seriously, get your learn on, your information is *way* out of date.
Most "evidence" I have seen that is supposed to support the Dark Matter theory tends to also support the alternative theories.
No, it really doesn't. Seriously. Learn a little before making yourself sound like a fool. Here, I'll even help you:
Actually, it does exist. Frankly, I'm fucking sick of posting the same links over and over, so why don't you just go to Wikipedia and read about the Bullet Cluster. There is simply no question, now, even among MOND proponents: there is weakly interacting matter out there, and we have no idea what it is.
So, are you trolling, or are you really not aware that the jury is in and that dark matter has been confirmed (and more importantly, that MOND without any kind of weakly interacting matter has been ruled out)?
...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.
It exists. Educate yourself.
The Voodoo card did texturing in hardware and the GeForce did transform and lighting as well, but these were just accelerating parts of the fixed-function pipeline. You used the same programming model with and without this acceleration, it just made your code run faster. With pixel and vertex shaders, you had two separate code paths, one for the fixed-function pipeline and one with shaders. This was a bit more effort, but you were mainly using the shaders to do the same thing as the fixed-function pipeline, just with a few more special effects. With geometry and compute shaders, you can generate a lot of your data on the GPU. Writing fall-back code basically means either writing the engine twice or not using the new hardware to anything close to its full potential.
Yeah, but if all this is true (and I'm no game programmer, so I'm going to have to take your word for it), then what I'm hearing is that you *can't* write a game that takes advantage of these amazing new features in DX11 while remaining compatible with the vast majority of the market that still only has DX9- and DX10-compatible cards, unless you plan to write two completely independent rendering pipelines.
As such, I fail to see how one can blame the consoles, here. After all, all those people with DX10-compatible video cards in their PCs are every bit as much of a problem for those developers. The real problem is that the rendering model for DX11 is so different that, unless you want to write two pipelines, your choice is target DX11 and leave out a huge chunk of of the PC market *and* the console market, or just target DX10.
*snicker* Well, we'll agree to disagree. :) But on this point:
Well, you're still assuming the ostensible motive...
Again... quit being a paranoid jackass. Seriously. Just because you don't like the approach, and evidentally don't like Google, doesn't mean this scheme must necessarily be motivated by some secret, nefarious secondary purpose.
Honestly, I've never understood why people, when faced with an idea they don't like or can't understand, just fall back to deriding the source of the idea. You sound like a Republican attacking healthcare reform. It can't be that they simply disagree. No no. It must be an evil socialist plot to take over the lives of every American.
It's totally absurd, and you really need to try and back up and get a little perspective. Honestly.
Sorry, what? The video illustrates how an ISP arrived at the stage of providing good native consumer IPv6. Yet Google, which has done no such thing for any consumer, thought his efforts not good enough when he tried to get whitelisted.
Yup, I understand that. Google treated them the same way they treat every random ISP on the street, with suspicion, because so many ISPs have gotten IPv6 wrong.
Again, the ISPs have made this bed. This guy may be one of the shining lights, but he's in an industry that's just barely competent enough to keep a regular v4 network up and alive. You can hardly blame Google for doing their diligence.
Google has done less for IPv6 than this guy's ISP has. They have:
And yet, v6 has still gone nowhere, despite all his evangelizing. Which is, I'm sure, quite frustrating. But the simple fact is, v6 ain't goin' nowhere unless there's content. And that guy isn't providing content. So while I applaud his efforts, him, and people like him, aren't going to be the sole reason v6 finally gets real adoption. It's gonna be a concerted effort between ISPs *and* content providers, and this scheme finally has a chance of getting content providers onboard.
Google don't seem interested in actually deploying IPv6, and reject businesses such as his which are at the forefront of consumer IPv6 deployment.
Oh come on, quit being so dramatic. Google never rejected anyone. Did they make those guys go through a bunch of hoops? Yes, they did. But the guy flat out stated that he expects to close a peering agreement with Google.
And as for claiming Google "don't seem interested in actually deploying IPv6", that's just bullshit. Clearly they are, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered rolling out YouTube and all their other services over v6, nor would they have set up peering arrangements with HE, this ISP you cited, and I'm sure others. And they wouldn't be working on this whitelisting scheme now.
But what they're *not* interested in is adversely affecting their massive, existing customer base. And can you really blame them? I can't.
No, you just don't like how Google is going about it. And that's fine. But don't attribute malice or incompetence to an approach you simply disagree with.
Google, in its control freakery, should not step so cautiously, and absolutely must not encourage the rest of the Internet world to do so.
Dude, the rest of the Internet world is *already are being that cautious*! Don't you see? Content providers *already* refuse to deploy v6 because of these issues. They're *already* too scared of the customer backlash. The only way to get them past those fears is to provide some kind of guarantee that their end users won't be impacted. The proposed scheme has a chance of doing that.
If Google really wanted to make a difference, it would follow JANET's lead into properly documenting and cooperating with ISPs in implementing IPv6 multicast, and use its resources to showcase other IPv6 goodies. If Google really wanted to make a difference it could add AAAA records at some stage with a notice passing people to a legacy.google.com for people with fucked up IPv6 connectivity (which could be for any number of reasons /other than a nasty ISP-provided router/).
Bah, that's just totally unrealistic.
If I understand you correctly, the "proper" way to finally get v6 deployed is to find a way to showcase technologies that take advantage of unique v6 features (of which multicast and end-to-end connectivity are really the only ones that would concern the end user). But, once again, this is a chicken-and-egg problem. People won't build new, exciting applications on top of v6 technology if there's no one out there to use those damned applications in the first place.
Still, you make a legitimate point. It is certainly true that Google could probably do more to evangelize v6. Simply deploying it isn't enough to really get users interested in the topic. I'm
What about it? That video just illustrates precisely what this coalition is trying to deploy, as Google has been doing this for a while now. Again, is it annoying for the ISP? Yeah. I just don't care, that's all.
Frankly, I find it funny that guy doesn't understand why Google is being so cautious. Then again, he isn't in the business of making money based on eyeballs. Google, meanwhile, stands to lose real dollars if someone decides to, say, switch to Bing because Google's AAAA records cause that person's network connection to seemingly slow to a crawl while they're trying to perform a search.
No, it's just a few loud providers who made little effort deploying IPv6 in the first place.
Good lord, you've *got* to be kidding. Google has done more to push v6 than virtually any other content provider out there. And I'm actually a little shocked NetFlix is on board.
Do you have any *better* examples of content providers getting onboard? 'cuz god knows I don't, specifically because of issues like this.
So we have to do X, and they get switched over to more experimental alternatives, rather than having a choice?
Buh? If the users want access to the v6 network, then this is what the ISPs need to do. What is this "choice" you're referring to? Because last I checked, users would have a choice: run dual-stack or don't.
What are you talking about? They'll have to do that to get native IPv6.
But these users that are affected by this issue have *no idea* how they're connected to the internet. They didn't seek out v6 connectivity. That wasn't on their list of shit to deploy this week. The whole point is that mom happens to be running a v6-capable router ('cuz that's what they sold at Best Buy), and it turns out that that the router or ISP is broken in some way. Mom didn't go out to *get* v6 connectivity. It just happened.
So now you're saying that, to fix this problem, we should expect those consumers to go upgrade their routers? It's just not gonna happen (outside the normal obsolescence cycle).
Google's scheme tackles one of these problems badly, with a more reliable and no less useful result coming from simply refusing their offer entirely.
I disagree. This scheme at least makes it possible for content providers to start deploying v6 right now, without adversely affecting their existing customer base, while simultaneously transparently enabling v6 for those users who have an ISP that's on the ball (thanks to Google's agreement with HE, for example, www.google.com has AAAA records if you're connected to my network, so anyone using my wifi can transparently access Google's services over the v6 web, and they have *no idea it's even happening*).
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree, it's not a perfect solution. But, let's face it, v6 is horribly stalled out right now, and unless content providers start populating the v6 web, it'll continue to go nowhere fast, and content providers won't get on the ball as long as v6 connectivity is broken for a financially significant fraction of their userbase.
Incidentally, I strongly suspect this is also very temporary. After all, I really doubt the providers *want* to have to run this fucking thing, as there is non-trivial administrative overhead. But for now, at least it allows content providers to start providing v6 content to users without expecting them to use silly domain name hacks (come on, an ipv6-specific subdomain? There's a great way to ensure no one hits your v6-enabled site).
As an aside, I do appreciate this (incredibly extended) conversation... it's an interesting subject, and you've certainly got a valid set of points. I just honestly don't believe that your transition scheme can actually work in the real world (god knows it hasn't over the last, what, 10 years?), which leaves few options for moving forward (although, hey, if you can think of something else, I'd be curious to hear it).
I was stating that 0.8% of people being bothered isn't a reason to create some massive scheme
Clearly the content providers who'd be losing those users completely disagree with you. And given it's their money and their content, and given their reluctance to deploy v6 is one of the primary reasons v6 is going nowhere, it probably makes sense to listen to their needs and attempt to address them. This scheme does that.
Only if your idea of deployment is "add AAAA records then go home", which is a crap approach and not at all like the one I suggested.
Yeah, but again, your scheme has been considered. It's been found wanting.
So, yes, you could cover your ears, keep yelling "la la la, my idea is better", or you could just admit that something new is needed, as v6 is clearly stuck.
you're expecting every ISP to submit DNS server details to Google and be at the mercy of *their* testing service to enable the ability of all their users to make use of an Internet protocol. That's a horrible precedent.
Yes. Tough. Honestly, I just don't care if it's inconvenient for the ISPs. They've already proven they are unwilling to roll out v6 in any sort of meaningful way. So if they can't be trusted, well, then Google and the other content providers are gonna have to start babysitting them until they can get their shit in gear.
Also, what about people who use OpenDNS or any other number of DNS servers, such as Google's own?
Tough. Either that or OpenDNS needs to talk to the whitelist management to get an exemption for their service (odds are people who are using OpenDNS are a minority, and so they might not care if a few OpenDNS users with b0rked v6 connections suddenly see major slowdowns). Or you just live with browsing the v4 web. *shrug*
Sigh. The IPv6-ready home router would do that for you. If you were tunneling, the tunneling setup software you install would do it for you.
So you want to fix this issue by... having everyone affected go out and buy new routers?
Now who's thinking like an engineer?
The *entire point* is that broken hardware is out there and there's no impetus to get it replaced, as the content providers refuse to advertise AAAA records... because there's all that broken hardware out there. So, yeah, if you could magically fix all the broken gear and get IPV6-ready routers in everyone's houses, the problem would go away. But, of course, that ain't gonna happen.
The Internet is regularly broken for .8% of users for a multitude of reasons.
That's a BS argument, though. The "internet" isn't broken for these people. IPv6 is broken for these people. If a content provider deploys IPv6, suddenly a *new* 0.8% of internet users will be highly annoyed trying to access their site. So, from a content provider's perspective, they can either inconvenience that .8% of users for no real appreciable gain in the short term, or they could just not bother.
The third option is this one: selectively make v6 available to ISPs who guarantee connectivity.
All that's needed is a few bigger players to offer two alternative sites, as above, and to perhaps give perks for IPv6 - hopefully /using/ the advantages of IPv6, such as working multicasting for bandwidth-efficient live media streaming, or IPv6sec, or any number of things that are easier without NAT.
But that's already been tried! Hell, Google's been running ipv6.google.com for *years*. But IPv6 adoption *still* isn't happening. So, yes, we could keep going with your plan, ensuring that v6 will never get out the door, or we can finally admit that transition scheme simply doesn't work, and try something different.
Information and control. I mean, if it's no bother, I'll volunteer to be the guy who aims to get a list of every ISP on the planet, an accurate database of addresses actually used by its customers, and an implied statement of willingness to submit data to my database
Umm, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even understand how this scheme works? Apparently not.
Here, let me explain how Google does it (presumably this larger-scale whitelist will work the same way): ISP goes to Google and says "I'm v6 ready!". Google says to ISP "aight, sweet, let's test it out." Google verifies it works. Now Google configures their DNS servers to return AAAA records to the ISP DNS server. Now anyone in the ISP's network using the ISP's DNS servers will get AAAA records for Google's services.
Nowhere in this scheme does Google need a list of IP addresses from the ISP.
Seriously, where'd you get the idea that they'd need a IP list?
Irrelevant. The local router/gateway does the requesting - it could be an IPv6 DNS client and an IPv4 DNS server (although tbh I'm not quiet sure what's being whitelisted anyway here, as it's the ISP's DNS server that's going to be seen by the content provider).
Oh come on, you and I both know that most people don't have a local DNS cache that can submit the requests over v6. We're talking about your grandma, here, not a computer geek running their own FreeBSD firewall.
The problem of ISPs distributing broken routers which manage to advertise a prefix which they aren't ever issued with? Perhaps you aren't sure yourself, since you haven't been able to name one router which exhibits the problem, but you're not making it clear what actually goes wrong and why the solution isn't to fix the problem (of distributing broken routers) rather than one huge bureaucratic bandaid.
Because the whitelist is feasible? The alternative is to break connectivity for (according to these folks) .8% of users while those broken routers are fixed/replaced.
Besides which, without v6 content, there is no reason to fix broken hardware. And if the broke hardware isn't fixed, content providers won't roll out v6. It's the same chicken-and-egg problem v6 has been stalled over for years. The difference is, this whitelist solution actually has a chance of fixing it.
If you regard negotiating with every ISP as "voila... problem solved", you are more engineer than the real world will allow for.
If the guys running the whitelist are willing to go through that effort, who cares? Does it solve the problem? Yes. Is it complicated? Certainly. But at least it has a chance of succeeding.
I've already heard many people whine about IPv6 slowing down their machine. It's usually to do with a small amount of time wasted by failing at looking up an AAAA record before moving onto the A record, and nothing to do with finding an AAAA record and trying to access it. The AAAA lookup, as far as I can recally, happens when the system supports IPv6 rather than only when the system has a routable IPv6 address, which is daft.
Yeah, agreed, that's definitely an issue. In fact, glibc used to do that for a long time (fortunately that issue is fixed... I believe now it only attempts AAAA resolution if the host has a routable v6 address).
And I certainly agree with you that there are likely *many* reasons why advertising AAAA records has caused headaches for end hosts, not the least of which is broken v6 stacks (as previously alluded to). But broken routing is, at least as far as I can tell, a well known issue with v6, and I really can't blame the content providers for attempting to search for a solution to this issue.
I suggested that the ISPs aren't being honest about why they want the whitelist.
So what do you think the real reason is? Either it's to fix v6 connectivity issues, or there's some other reason. Why do you propose that reason is?
If I'm Joe provider, I can return AAAA records if you're using my DNS server via IPv6, or A records if you're using it via IPv4. And, if I'm an ISP, I'll send the customer appropriate A-sending or AAAA-sending server addresses depending on how you're connecting, without you having to worry. Why will this not happen, unless you don't want it to? I need more information.
Probably because there's *still* some OSes that don't support DNS resolution over IPv6? Heck, even glibc is known to have issues with this configuration.
I don't think Google or NetFlix are stupid - I think they're top performing businesses. Why would I therefore assume that their solution to a problem is the best solution for anyone but Google or NetFlix?
Well, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.
No idea, I don't have one. All I know is that searches like this indicate it's a real problem for some (well, or, at least, they think it is...).
Though, I must admit, the fact that I can't find specific model numbers is rather... suspicious (I assume it was some model(s) of D-Link, Linksys, etc, router). ie, people definitely blame the routers in various discussion forums, but I've never seen any one router pinned down as a problem. So I could be mistaken. Though the conclusion is often the same: they disable v6, and their problems go away.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise in this signal that can make it tough to pin down where the real problems lie. For example, one issue that has definitely bitten people was a bug in glibc where it would attempt to resolve to find a AAAA record for a host before falling back to A, even though the box didn't have v6 connectivity. This kind of issue could easily be blamed on a router, when it's actually a software bug (that, thankfully, is fixed, AFAIK).
Very interesting... I have an IPv6 tunnel from HE and I'd like to get that working as well. Is it as simple as pointing your resolver at HE's DNS servers? If so, what are their addresses?
Yup! That's all it takes. Just head to the "Tunnel Details" page for your HE tunnel. On that page is an "Available DNS Resolvers" section, which includes a v4 and a v6 address for their DNS server. Use that as your primary, and voila, you'll get AAAA records for most (all?) of Google's services.
How do you get on this whitelist?
*You* don't get on the whitelist. Your ISP gets on the whitelist, by demonstrating they have functional v6 network connectivity. Once that's done, the ISP is added to the whitelist, and thereafter, any DNS records resolved using the ISPs DNS servers will include AAAA records from participating content providers.
For example, Hurricane Electric entered just this sort of agreement with Google. As such, anyone using HE's DNS servers get Google's AAAA records, and so because I use HE as my tunnel broker, I get access to Google via v6. However, Google knows nothing about me in particular.
Which routers are these, and why is the correct procedure to maintain a massive whitelist (requiring ISP cooperation) rather than negotiating with ISPs to stop breaking IPv6 (requiring ISP cooperation)?
I'm afraid I can't give you specific model numbers, but this is a very well known problem amongst content providers mulling the idea of rolling out v6. And we're talking home routers, here, not ISP core routers.
And the whitelist *is* "negotiating with ISPs"... ie, they negotiate, the ISP sets up v6, and voila, they're on the whitelist. Problem solved.
The problem of hundreds of sites advertising AAAA records which timeout?
There are enough that it's noticeable, yes. Did you do the Google search? I bet you didn't. Maybe you should research the issue before dismissing it out of hand, eh?
If you think I'm wrong, you could have said all that you've said without that sentence.
You suggested that these provides had some ulterior motive for wanting this whitelist, and that the whole v6 thing was a coverup. That sounds pretty paranoid to me.
Or, since we're breaking the universality of DNS, why don't we only respond with AAAA records if a nameserver's talking over IPv6?
Because the *vast* majority of DNS traffic is, and will continue to be for the near future, performed over v4, even if the client is v6 enabled. Hell, I have an HE tunnel right now, and I use v4 to resolve DNS records.
Honestly, if you don't agree with the solution to this problem, fine, so be it. But at least do a little research. This is a very real problem requiring a real solution. Or do you *really* think Google and NetFlix are just too stupid to realize how right you are?