"I do love all the people that think all of a sudden there toasters can have real IP's and NAT will go away, nothing in IPv6 says they have to give you more than one IP without paying more for it just like today."
I love being one of them. Why? Because they *have* to give you a/64 subnet for things like globally routable addresses to work. Many people see to not know that a routable IP6 address is made of 64 bits that your upstream provider gives you, plus (in the case of ethernet) 16 bits of padding plus your 48 bit MAC address. The 16 bits of padding is needed because some other link-level protocals have 64 bit address.
Unless maybe you mean that the ISP will somehow use a link-local address and all of the ISP's customers will be under one great big NAT?
The reason 64 bits of the address are "thrown away" is that it makes automatic configuration of IP addresses trivial while still precluding the possibility of address collisions. DHCP is not needed with IP6. Each device will actually have multiple addresses because a link-local address is required. The local address is not routable. A/64 subnet is to be given to an *administrative* division (a household, a branch office of a company, etc) because that administrative division will have control over the media addresses of the devices it owns.
The reporter, if the story is true, was ignorantly referring to the electrical field strength (which was measured in volts in the article).
No, the reporter was ignorantly referring to the electric potential (which was measured in volts in the article). Electric field is a vector field and is typically measured in volts per meter.
Of course, the above statement shouldn't be taken to mean that I think the reporter has the first clue about physics.
Actually, NASA does disclose all of its expenses. It is just a question of what you consider training and what you consider an operating expense.
For example, the radar facilities at Wallops Island are used for shuttle tracking during launches. Is this training for radar operators, or is it an expense of launching the shuttle? You tell me.
How confident are the makers of stegdetect that no steganographic images would slip past their program? Does their program simply work for all known steg. algorithms, or would it detect some or all kinds of new algorithms?
Stegdetect checks for the signatures of three steg programs (JSteg, JPHide, and OutGuess.13b)(Research Paper), and it does not detect new algorithms. Also, the effectiveness of stegdetect is determined by what steg program was used. It missed from 5% of JSteg stegs to 60% of OutGuess stegs. Finally, they did not try to detect stegs generated with OutGuess 0.2 because it has a better method of randomly selecting bits to change.
Slashdot Mirror
"I do love all the people that think all of a sudden there toasters can have real IP's and NAT will go away, nothing in IPv6 says they have to give you more than one IP without paying more for it just like today."
/64 subnet for things like globally routable addresses to work. Many people see to not know that a routable IP6 address is made of 64 bits that your upstream provider gives you, plus (in the case of ethernet) 16 bits of padding plus your 48 bit MAC address. The 16 bits of padding is needed because some other link-level protocals have 64 bit address.
/64 subnet is to be given to an *administrative* division (a household, a branch office of a company, etc) because that administrative division will have control over the media addresses of the devices it owns.
I love being one of them. Why? Because they *have* to give you a
Unless maybe you mean that the ISP will somehow use a link-local address and all of the ISP's customers will be under one great big NAT?
The reason 64 bits of the address are "thrown away" is that it makes automatic configuration of IP addresses trivial while still precluding the possibility of address collisions. DHCP is not needed with IP6. Each device will actually have multiple addresses because a link-local address is required. The local address is not routable. A
No, the reporter was ignorantly referring to the electric potential (which was measured in volts in the article). Electric field is a vector field and is typically measured in volts per meter.
Of course, the above statement shouldn't be taken to mean that I think the reporter has the first clue about physics.
Actually, NASA does disclose all of its expenses. It is just a question of what you consider training and what you consider an operating expense.
For example, the radar facilities at Wallops Island are used for shuttle tracking during launches. Is this training for radar operators, or is it an expense of launching the shuttle? You tell me.
No. The X prize requires that they reach a specific minimum altitude (Somewhere around 100km IIRC). It says nothing about orbiting the earth.
Stegdetect checks for the signatures of three steg programs (JSteg, JPHide, and OutGuess .13b)(Research Paper), and it does not detect new algorithms. Also, the effectiveness of stegdetect is determined by what steg program was used. It missed from 5% of JSteg stegs to 60% of OutGuess stegs. Finally, they did not try to detect stegs generated with OutGuess 0.2 because it has a better method of randomly selecting bits to change.