It doesn't matter that they're cheaper to produce. All this will mean is greater profit margins for somebody in the chain.
As a consumer, if you're offered traditional tiles at £x per square metre or solar tiles that'll generate electricity at £(x+y) per square metre, the fact is that if 'y' isn't too great, you'll go with those.
Now if he could saturate the market, it may well end up being cheaper for the end user, but I'd lay odds on there's no way he'd manage to manufacture a fraction of the demand...
A VPN is a tunnelling service. A tunnelling service is not necessarily a VPN.
Both make your packets originate from somewhere else, and that's why geolocation doesn't work.
So the IPv4 packets that originate from my ISP in London can be geolocated whilst the IPv6 packets that originate from HE in London cannot? What twaddle. In HE's case, they have a large chunk of IPv6 addresses which are dished out to people connecting to their London endpoint which are incorrectly geo-located in California. I think what you are trying to say is "HE users can connect to any of HE's endpoints worldwide and therefore there is no guarantee that a HE address appearing to originate in country X is actually being used by somebody in country X".
I'm a user on an ISP with native IPv6 and I don't have problems connecting and watching shows.
I use a HE tunnel for day-to-day IPv6 connectivity (since my ISP, TalkTalk Business has no plans for IPv6 implementation[1]). Despite the fact that I connect to HE's UK endpoint and a traceroute shows traffic originating in the UK, Netflix's geo-loc database shows I'm coming from California. I have no particular desire to watch Netflix/US - quite happy with Netflix/UK, but in one fell swoop they've stopped me watching it at all.
Their "solution"? Disable IPv6. Not possible? Then this is what they suggest[2]:
No worries though, we do know that it is possible to set the network so that the IPV6 goes around Netflix. The details on how to do it have not really been disclosed to us reps, but I can tell by experience that other customers have been able to do so with the help of their ISP.
Quite what they think my ISP can do about it, I don't know.
I have absolutely no problem with Netflix geo-locking their content... as long as their geo-location database is accurate.
If IPv6 is such a problem for Netflix, then as somebody else has said, remove the AAAA records - at least I can continue watching it then. As it stands, I'm paying £7 a month for sod-all.
Gah.
Quarkoid.
[1] They stated "we have enough IPv4 addresses, so we have no need to move to IPv6", entirely missing the point about how the Internet works, but that's a different story!
[2] Part of a three-quarter hour on-line chat in which I try to tell them that they are denying me access because they have incorrect geo-loc information.
It would be nice if Slashdot itself was available on IPv6... After all, you would have thought that a site reporting on the latest and greatest in tech would have managed to adopt a technology fifteen years old by now!
It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...
There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.
Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.
Personally, I subscribe to the UK edition of Wired (even SWMBO likes it, which is saying something) and Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) as well as some camping/caravanning mags (yes, I'm an old fart with a family now). I used to get Computer Shopper (www.computershopper.co.uk) and PC Pro (www.pcpro.co.uk) but realised that by the time I'd received the magazine, I'd already read about the stories/reviews on-line two weeks before the magazine landed on my mat.
In my experience, cover disks are full of crapware and old versions of software (on the basis that you'll use that and then pay to upgrade to the latest version) - they always went straight in the bin.
And my grandfather smoked 40 a day and lived till he was 97. That doesn't mean smoking's good for you.
Whilst I have every sympathy with your situation, there are exceptions to every rule and quoting one case as evidence against a general theory serves nobody well.
Why would you think that it's only about tracking cookies? The legislation is quite clear:
(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not store or gain access to information stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment - (a)is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and (b) has given his or her consent
(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2), consent may be signified by a subscriber who amends or sets controls on the internet browser which the subscriber uses or by using another application or programme to signify consent.
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information - (a)for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or (b)where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user.
The whole law is about storing and/or accessing data stored on a user's PC. Please tell me where 'tracking cookies' are mentioned?
"Music is the big square boxes attached to your amplifier"
Close enough it may be, but to definitively state something as fact which is quite clearly not fact (or, even if it is, only in a limited number of cases) when describing why legislation applies is just wrong.
They could quite simply have said, "Cookies are small pieces of text which your computer may choose to store." - there, simple. It also has the plus that it tells the user it's up to them whether they're stored.
But then we're not very hot on taking responsibility for what our computers do.
...given that you can buy ipod breakout boards on ebay with the serial connectors clearly marked, it doesn't seem to be a particularly well kept secret.
Reading this and thinking back, I can't help but think of the Kuebler-Ross model. Back in 2001 MS were in denial. We've been through anger, bargaining and (arguably) depression. Is this now acceptance?
Anyone that runs from the police is breaking the law.
However...
1 - The police were plain clothes and did not show any ID 2 - The police were (reportedly) yelling somebody else's name 3 - They caught him, so why shoot him?
To me, the shooting of an innocent man (and remember, at the point he was shot he had been caught and most definitely wasn't running) in such circumstances sounds like a complete over-reaction brought about by terror induced by the government's constant screaming at us about the terrorist threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes the current system gives more sun in the summer months.
There is exactly the same amount of sun in summer regardless of whether the clocks are put forward, backwards or left exactly the same.
Altitude Adjusted Lachrymosity Syndrome. It's a thing. First mentioned on the BBC's premier film programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lvdrj/episodes/downloads) and detailed in their Witterpedia, http://witterpedia.net/wiki/index.php?title=AALS.
It doesn't matter that they're cheaper to produce. All this will mean is greater profit margins for somebody in the chain.
As a consumer, if you're offered traditional tiles at £x per square metre or solar tiles that'll generate electricity at £(x+y) per square metre, the fact is that if 'y' isn't too great, you'll go with those.
Now if he could saturate the market, it may well end up being cheaper for the end user, but I'd lay odds on there's no way he'd manage to manufacture a fraction of the demand...
A VPN is a tunneling service. Same thing.
A VPN is a tunnelling service. A tunnelling service is not necessarily a VPN.
Both make your packets originate from somewhere else, and that's why geolocation doesn't work.
So the IPv4 packets that originate from my ISP in London can be geolocated whilst the IPv6 packets that originate from HE in London cannot? What twaddle. In HE's case, they have a large chunk of IPv6 addresses which are dished out to people connecting to their London endpoint which are incorrectly geo-located in California. I think what you are trying to say is "HE users can connect to any of HE's endpoints worldwide and therefore there is no guarantee that a HE address appearing to originate in country X is actually being used by somebody in country X".
I'm a user on an ISP with native IPv6 and I don't have problems connecting and watching shows.
Well that's OK then.
Quarkoid.
HE's IPv4-IPv6 offering is a VPN.
HE do not provide VPNs - it's a tunnelling service. There is a difference.
Direct IPv6 connections will work fine.
Did you not read the article? "while users on ISPs that provide native IPv6 are also facing difficulty connecting and watching shows"
I use a HE tunnel for day-to-day IPv6 connectivity (since my ISP, TalkTalk Business has no plans for IPv6 implementation[1]). Despite the fact that I connect to HE's UK endpoint and a traceroute shows traffic originating in the UK, Netflix's geo-loc database shows I'm coming from California. I have no particular desire to watch Netflix/US - quite happy with Netflix/UK, but in one fell swoop they've stopped me watching it at all.
Their "solution"? Disable IPv6. Not possible? Then this is what they suggest[2]:
No worries though, we do know that it is possible to set the network so that the IPV6 goes around Netflix. The details on how to do it have not really been disclosed to us reps, but I can tell by experience that other customers have been able to do so with the help of their ISP.
Quite what they think my ISP can do about it, I don't know.
I have absolutely no problem with Netflix geo-locking their content... as long as their geo-location database is accurate.
If IPv6 is such a problem for Netflix, then as somebody else has said, remove the AAAA records - at least I can continue watching it then. As it stands, I'm paying £7 a month for sod-all.
Gah.
Quarkoid.
[1] They stated "we have enough IPv4 addresses, so we have no need to move to IPv6", entirely missing the point about how the Internet works, but that's a different story!
[2] Part of a three-quarter hour on-line chat in which I try to tell them that they are denying me access because they have incorrect geo-loc information.
Spoofed DDOS attacks wouldn't be a problem if the users' ISPs implemented source address filtering.
Come to think of it, an awful lot of the Internet's problems would be resolved by ISPs implementing source address filtering.
It would be nice if Slashdot itself was available on IPv6... After all, you would have thought that a site reporting on the latest and greatest in tech would have managed to adopt a technology fifteen years old by now!
It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...
There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.
Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.
For details of subscriptions, have a look at:
http://www.subscription.co.uk/
http://www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk/
https://www.circules.com/
http://www.isubscribe.co.uk/ (although their site doesn't appear to load if you're using IPv6)
Outside of the UK though, they're not cheap!
Personally, I subscribe to the UK edition of Wired (even SWMBO likes it, which is saying something) and Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) as well as some camping/caravanning mags (yes, I'm an old fart with a family now). I used to get Computer Shopper (www.computershopper.co.uk) and PC Pro (www.pcpro.co.uk) but realised that by the time I'd received the magazine, I'd already read about the stories/reviews on-line two weeks before the magazine landed on my mat.
In my experience, cover disks are full of crapware and old versions of software (on the basis that you'll use that and then pay to upgrade to the latest version) - they always went straight in the bin.
No, it's credit card sized. How many times do you need to be told?
http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Picture-001-copy.jpg
(ignore the border - that's removed after manufacture).
Percentage of State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at time of their offense, 1997
Not sure what you're saying here - looks to me like the majority of people said they weren't on drugs.
The logical conclusion to this data is that not being on drugs should be outlawed, no?
And my grandfather smoked 40 a day and lived till he was 97. That doesn't mean smoking's good for you.
Whilst I have every sympathy with your situation, there are exceptions to every rule and quoting one case as evidence against a general theory serves nobody well.
Your comment is irrelevant - please read the legislation.
Any cookie (be it tracking/temporary/whatever) is covered.
Why would you think that it's only about tracking cookies? The legislation is quite clear:
(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not store or gain access to information stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment -
(a)is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and
(b) has given his or her consent
(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2), consent may be signified by a subscriber who amends or sets controls on the internet browser which the subscriber uses or by using another application or programme to signify consent.
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information -
(a)for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or
(b)where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user.
The whole law is about storing and/or accessing data stored on a user's PC. Please tell me where 'tracking cookies' are mentioned?
It was found down the back of the sofa - it's the first place one should look for missing things.
"Petrol is a metal tank attached to your car"
"Ink is the stick you use to write on paper with"
"Music is the big square boxes attached to your amplifier"
Close enough it may be, but to definitively state something as fact which is quite clearly not fact (or, even if it is, only in a limited number of cases) when describing why legislation applies is just wrong.
They could quite simply have said, "Cookies are small pieces of text which your computer may choose to store." - there, simple. It also has the plus that it tells the user it's up to them whether they're stored.
But then we're not very hot on taking responsibility for what our computers do.
Ho hum.
...when the people creating the law have no understanding of the subject they're legislating on.
"[cookies] are text files placed on your computer"
Say no more.
...given that you can buy ipod breakout boards on ebay with the serial connectors clearly marked, it doesn't seem to be a particularly well kept secret.
See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Enhanced-Breakout-Board-Ipod-Iphone-Ipad-/370447835814?pt=UK_CE_MP3Access_RL&hash=item56406962a6 for an example.
Reading this and thinking back, I can't help but think of the Kuebler-Ross model. Back in 2001 MS were in denial. We've been through anger, bargaining and (arguably) depression. Is this now acceptance?
I've got to ask the question, but... why?
I mean, if you don't want anybody to find this stuff when you're dead, why bother collecting it when you're alive?
And for the 'pictures' of the wife, what's wrong with a Truecrypt store?
And you would know this..... how?
Presumably Google have found a way to tag each electron with targetted advertising.
Plug your washing machine into a Google Energy supply and your shirts will come out of the machine covered in ad-words suggestions.
I hate to think what you'll get adverts for when you wash a three day old pair of gruds.
...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.
Anyone that runs from the police is breaking the law.
However...
1 - The police were plain clothes and did not show any ID
2 - The police were (reportedly) yelling somebody else's name
3 - They caught him, so why shoot him?
To me, the shooting of an innocent man (and remember, at the point he was shot he had been caught and most definitely wasn't running) in such circumstances sounds like a complete over-reaction brought about by terror induced by the government's constant screaming at us about the terrorist threat.