Individual homes are far more expensive to wire new connections to than units in apartments. And in most parts of the United States, apartments are the exception, not the rule, and houses tend to be spread out far from city centers as well. It makes non-government mandated universal service a tricky business.
56K connections are a legacy of voice networks, not some sort of indication of the best technology available at the time. Ten years ago 768K / 256K DSL was common in many parts of the United States. Now it is more like 7M / 1M in the same areas. 100M generally requires fiber to the home, and the $3000 cost per home is the main reason why 100M is not likely to be predominant in ten years. 20M / 4M maybe. Rewiring connections to individual homes is expensive.
There are fundamental technical reasons why most residential Internet connections have asymmetrical bandwidths. On cable systems, there are shared coaxial segments and downstream bandwidth scheduling is trivial. Upstream bandwidth scheduling not so much.
On DSL, the frequency bands are divided up between upstream and downstream bandwidth based on an entirely reasonable assumption about what most consumers will prefer the division to be. In addition cross talk between binder pairs means that it is much more practical to transmit downstream than up. Pairs are nearer a larger number of other interfering pairs near the node / central office than they are near the home. Poor quality wiring in homes and offices is a problem as well. Higher power transmission near poorly shielded wiring = more radio interference.
The 1.5 M down /.8 M up that is common with CO DSL deployments is not that asymmetrical. A 7 M / 1 M split probably is. Qwest is looking to change that in the future, fortunately.
The last issue is that outbound traffic costs more for (relatively large) ISPs than inbound traffic. Long story behind that.
It is an economic issue, not a technical issue. If a healthy percentage of the people in a service area were willing to pay $100 a month for Internet service, they could all have fiber connections capable of peak bandwidths much higher than that.
But FTTH deployments like UTOPIA have a hard time reaching a 10% take rate, let alone the 30% rate needed to break even, because there are less expensive HFC and FTTN alternatives for most people, alternatives that are already deployed in most metro areas.
So unless the government says we are going to raise everyone's taxes by $20 a month to make this kind of service available everywhere, it is not likely to happen on a uniform basis any time soon.
It is extremely unlikely that there will ever be more than one FTTH (fiber to the home) network in any given area, because the economics of connecting each house make FTTH into a natural monopoly.
As a consequence, it is inevitable that the government will start regulating FTTH networks in the future like the utilities that they really are. Network neutrality is just the beginning.
I'm saying that the area is profitable, and that there is no requirement to offer service at all - instead, lines are drawn up, and companies are given areas where they are the exclusive provider of broadband.
I can practically guarantee you that this is a violation of federal law, with regard to wireless broadband services in particular. Of course you may need an FCC license to operate on certain frequencies, but that is just to avoid technical conflicts.
Is it really the case that you cannot get satellite Internet service in your locale, for example? And is it really the case that both the cable company and the telephone company cannot both provide broadband Internet service?
A municipality may drag its feet on negotiating wireline easements and the like, but in most states if you have a certificate of public convenience and necessity, they are pretty much required to.
The RBOCs don't actually *lose* money leasing pairs to CLECs you know. If they don't make enough of a margin on them, they should petition the local public utilities commission to raise the rates.
In any case, the copper plant should be viewed as a public resource (it is a natural monopoly), and if the local telco does not want to maintain it, they should be required to sell it to a company / organization that will. This idea of pulling pairs out of offices and homes should be considered a crime.
There are people who actually study computer science and engineering without a formal degree in the field, you know. People whose CS/CE knowledge runs circles around anyone just out of school, because they make their education in the field a work of a life time, not something to be dispensed with in a few years and then glossed over from time to time with a superficial knowledge of the latest genX language or API.
Software is largely not owned by its workers. Doctors are independent. Lawyers independent. The big finance/accounting firms are largely partnerships...
That is not an apples to apples comparison. Software doesn't have to be owned by its workers, but it often helps to be developed by independent firms where programmers (hopefully) have a broader variety of experience.
Unfortunately, if software development was billed out at $250 an hour, the way a lot of legal work is, nothing would ever get done. Unlike attorneys, most of whom we could do without, software development at rates like that would kill the economy.
Of course, most companies can't handle the idea of paying more to experienced software consulting firms than they pay for apprentice plumbing or car repair work. I have been an independent contractor for virtually all my working life, and the idea among clients that a consulting agency should charge more than 10% markup on the per hour cost of an a full time programmer of average ability (let alone an entry level code monkey) is pretty rare. If you do come on site, all the employees that you are not actually making much more than tend to resent (if not ostracize) you based on poor assumptions of what your billing rate translates to in any case.
One thing that would help would be to end the practice of granting non-taxable benefits that don't actually show up on the W-2 at the end of the year, and require companies to list employees actual compensation costs, all benefits and taxes included - pensions, health care, employers share of social security, workers comp, etc. There are a lot of employees (especially in government and unionized jobs) who are compensated nearly twice as much as what is indicated on their W-2.
You can't just copy the data in a digital map, unless the data is indistinguishable from the facts the data is a representation of, and there was no creativity, selection, and arrangement involved.
Facts are not copyrightable. With some few exceptions, representations are. In most cases, data is not a collection of facts, it is a representation of facts. The nature of what happened on the way from fact to representation can make the latter protectable by copyright in a manner the former is not.
No. Maps are not facts, maps are representations of facts. Big difference. You can copy the actual facts, assuming you can tell what the facts are, but you cannot copy the representation of those facts, if there was any creativity, selection, or discretionary arrangement involved in creating that representation.
It is like the difference between a photo and what the photo is taken of. Photos are generally protectable by copyright, due to the creativity involved in choosing a time, place, angle, lighting, etc. Maps are similar, except with different creative elements, most notably selection.
In the United States, there is a "hot news" doctrine that protects the distribution of time sensitive information like stock ticker prices to some degree, in addition to whatever contractual requirements which may be placed upon you by the source of the data themselves. As far as I know, this is a creation of the courts, and has no statutory basis in federal law. It is common law all the same, however.
A 3D model of a building, as such, is of course copyrightable. However, the facts within the 3D model, to the degree that they are facts, are not. The same issue applies to maps. Maps are copyrightable. The facts represented by the map, however, to the degree, and only to the degree, that they are facts are not protectable by copyright, no matter how much effort was engaged in collecting them.
So ironically, the more accurate a model or a map is, the greater the content of true facts (rather than selective approximations), and thus the more susceptible to be used as a legtitimate source of facts for models and maps created by others. Of course determining what is and what isn't a fact in the original map or model is a major burden on the latter, as it should be. If you do not have two or more independent sources for the same information, it can be rather risky.
That means that for all practical purposes there is absolutely no way that one can run a 3D model through some sort of automated process that extracts all the facts and creates a new, unencumbered 3D model. Somebody has to decide what really is a fact, and to do that reliably he or she needs at at least two independent sources to review, and then create a new model based on considered judgment of what the facts of the matter actually are.
See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failed
I have never met a conservative who believed that. I don't think I have ever read a conservative who believed that - not a modern one anyway. There might be some theological odd balls out there somewhere who believe that all success is a sign of divine favor, but that is too much for even (most) Calvinists to swallow. It is like claiming God favored both Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki, or Borodino and Waterloo.
The problem with (big) banks is they want the public to shoulder the risks, while their shareholders take the reward. That is perverse. "Too big to fail" must die. Playing the lottery with government guaranteed deposits equally so.
Why is it, by the way, that we let banks borrow from the Fed at the lowest possible interest rate, but not private citizens? Wouldn't it be rather more fair if any private entity with adequate credit could borrow from the Fed at the same rate the banks do? I mean, why (for example) can't Google borrow from the Fed?
The big news here is this: Openness and choice: We'll operate an "open access" network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we'll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way.
This is similar to the UTOPIA model - A layer 2 network infrastructure that multiple ISPs can use to provide layer 3 services. If other ISPs step up to the plate it is not entirely clear that Google needs to be an ISP on their own network at all. Google wants essentially what UTOPIA wants, and the less capital they have to put into it, the better.
I suspect Google's real goal here is to jump start the provider independent network market - the one that the Baby Bells don't want to be in any more. It is certainly in Google's strategic interest to do so. The Baby Bells would rather set up walled gardens and charge royalties on everything. Essentially the exact opposite of the intent of the Communications Act of 1934.
The only way to fix that is to either establish provider independent local access, or make ISPs into (heavily regulated) common carriers. There will never be enough facilities based competition to guarantee neutrality by any other means. Ten fibers to your house? I don't think so.
BASIC is pretty much the reason why Microsoft exists. Altair BASIC, Applesoft Basic, MBASIC, Atari BASIC, Commodore BASIC, BASICA, GWBASIC, AmigaBasic, QuickBASIC, Visual Basic, Visual Basic for Applications,...
Virtually every home / personal computer shipped (in the U.S.) during the early 1980s, including the original IBM PC, had Microsoft software in ROM. Those that didn't usually came with a derivative of Microsoft BASIC as part of the operating system. This factor should not be underestimated.
Many vendors have alarmingly thin information about their products on their web site and in their brochures, unfortunately. Alarmingly thin as in doesn't answer some of the most basic questions any technical person would ask about the product.
In cases like these I can't decide whether the marketing people are lazy, ignorant, or incompetent.
Even if Macmillan had no direct control over what price their books retailed at, the wholesale price they offer would certainly force Amazon to sell Macmillan's books at some reasonable markup over that, if they sold them at all. Amazon certainly cannot sell a $12 wholesale book for $9.99 - not if they expect to make a profit, at any rate.
Now if Macmillan was prohibiting retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books for less than $15.99 that would be a more serious issue. I am not sure that is the case here though.
Oh, btw - the cache has to be SRAM so that if the power goes out, it can write the files when it comes back on.
That requires a battery or supercapacitor on the drive itself, and while some (expensive) SSDs have the latter, the feature is still relatively rare.
Of course any serious ("enterprise") application should have a UPS, but uninterruptible power supplies (or the power distribution networks) can and do fail from time to time, for a variety of reasons, so adding a supercapacitor to protect the (block level) integrity of writes that are in progress is an excellent idea.
Even better, persistent caches allow a storage device to confirm synchronous writes much faster than otherwise, which is a big deal in certain applications, notably databases and email servers. Of course if you are so unfortunate as to be using RAID 5 with these devices, you will need a battery backed RAID controller anyway, in order to close the infamous RAID 5 "write hole".
Lastly, unless you are using a transactional filesystem, battery backed storage caches will not prevent partially written files from being corrupted if the system loses power, because they are block oriented, not file oriented devices, and are much too small to hold new copies of non-trivial files in any case. A well designed program can work around that limitation though (e.g. write temporary file, fsync, rename) as long as the filesystem itself is journalled.
Your numbers are for "Computer Scientists" - generally with a Ph.D. The numbers from the BLS for "Computer Software Engineers and Computer Programmers" are lower:
"In May 2008, median annual wages of wage-and-salary computer applications software engineers were $85,430. The middle 50 percent earned between $67,790 and $104,870. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $53,720, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $128,870"
"Median annual wages of wage-and-salary computer programmers were $69,620 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $52,640 and $89,720 a year. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $40,080, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $111,450."
Is there any physical reason why a router couldn't do the following to transparently enable ipv6-oblivious software to effectively "inverse-NAT the rest of the world"?
No, there isn't. "NAT46" routers do just that, and one way or another they will become common in the next several years. Comcast is working with ISC to develop a NAT46 solution they call an address family transition router. Cisco has similar support in the works too.
Comcast figures people will be running one or more IPv4 only devices on residential networks for a long time, so the need for a NAT46 solution of some type will be nearly universal.
There is also NAT64 which works the other way - connecting IPv6 only clients to IPv4 only servers. It has the advantage of being much simpler and easier to implement than NAT46 is.
Things are supposed to auto-configure in IPv6 land
Servers are not going to auto-configure any time soon. DNS requires that servers have stable, static IP addresses. Using the MAC as part of the address won't work, because it makes it difficult to impossible to switch network cards, short of statically assigning a custom MAC which defeats the point.
For various reasons an *enormous* amount of security is done using IP address masks. None of that auto-configures with IPv6 either, or at least not yet. That is all lots of work for server and network administrators, work which generally has to be duplicated for IPv4 and IPv6.
Slashdot Mirror
Individual homes are far more expensive to wire new connections to than units in apartments. And in most parts of the United States, apartments are the exception, not the rule, and houses tend to be spread out far from city centers as well. It makes non-government mandated universal service a tricky business.
56K connections are a legacy of voice networks, not some sort of indication of the best technology available at the time. Ten years ago 768K / 256K DSL was common in many parts of the United States. Now it is more like 7M / 1M in the same areas. 100M generally requires fiber to the home, and the $3000 cost per home is the main reason why 100M is not likely to be predominant in ten years. 20M / 4M maybe. Rewiring connections to individual homes is expensive.
There are fundamental technical reasons why most residential Internet connections have asymmetrical bandwidths. On cable systems, there are shared coaxial segments and downstream bandwidth scheduling is trivial. Upstream bandwidth scheduling not so much.
On DSL, the frequency bands are divided up between upstream and downstream bandwidth based on an entirely reasonable assumption about what most consumers will prefer the division to be. In addition cross talk between binder pairs means that it is much more practical to transmit downstream than up. Pairs are nearer a larger number of other interfering pairs near the node / central office than they are near the home. Poor quality wiring in homes and offices is a problem as well. Higher power transmission near poorly shielded wiring = more radio interference.
The 1.5 M down / .8 M up that is common with CO DSL deployments is not that asymmetrical. A 7 M / 1 M split probably is. Qwest is looking to change that in the future, fortunately.
The last issue is that outbound traffic costs more for (relatively large) ISPs than inbound traffic. Long story behind that.
It is an economic issue, not a technical issue. If a healthy percentage of the people in a service area were willing to pay $100 a month for Internet service, they could all have fiber connections capable of peak bandwidths much higher than that.
But FTTH deployments like UTOPIA have a hard time reaching a 10% take rate, let alone the 30% rate needed to break even, because there are less expensive HFC and FTTN alternatives for most people, alternatives that are already deployed in most metro areas.
So unless the government says we are going to raise everyone's taxes by $20 a month to make this kind of service available everywhere, it is not likely to happen on a uniform basis any time soon.
It is extremely unlikely that there will ever be more than one FTTH (fiber to the home) network in any given area, because the economics of connecting each house make FTTH into a natural monopoly.
As a consequence, it is inevitable that the government will start regulating FTTH networks in the future like the utilities that they really are. Network neutrality is just the beginning.
I'm saying that the area is profitable, and that there is no requirement to offer service at all - instead, lines are drawn up, and companies are given areas where they are the exclusive provider of broadband.
I can practically guarantee you that this is a violation of federal law, with regard to wireless broadband services in particular. Of course you may need an FCC license to operate on certain frequencies, but that is just to avoid technical conflicts.
Is it really the case that you cannot get satellite Internet service in your locale, for example? And is it really the case that both the cable company and the telephone company cannot both provide broadband Internet service?
A municipality may drag its feet on negotiating wireline easements and the like, but in most states if you have a certificate of public convenience and necessity, they are pretty much required to.
The RBOCs don't actually *lose* money leasing pairs to CLECs you know. If they don't make enough of a margin on them, they should petition the local public utilities commission to raise the rates.
In any case, the copper plant should be viewed as a public resource (it is a natural monopoly), and if the local telco does not want to maintain it, they should be required to sell it to a company / organization that will. This idea of pulling pairs out of offices and homes should be considered a crime.
There are people who actually study computer science and engineering without a formal degree in the field, you know. People whose CS/CE knowledge runs circles around anyone just out of school, because they make their education in the field a work of a life time, not something to be dispensed with in a few years and then glossed over from time to time with a superficial knowledge of the latest genX language or API.
Software is largely not owned by its workers. Doctors are independent. Lawyers independent. The big finance/accounting firms are largely partnerships...
That is not an apples to apples comparison. Software doesn't have to be owned by its workers, but it often helps to be developed by independent firms where programmers (hopefully) have a broader variety of experience.
Unfortunately, if software development was billed out at $250 an hour, the way a lot of legal work is, nothing would ever get done. Unlike attorneys, most of whom we could do without, software development at rates like that would kill the economy.
Of course, most companies can't handle the idea of paying more to experienced software consulting firms than they pay for apprentice plumbing or car repair work. I have been an independent contractor for virtually all my working life, and the idea among clients that a consulting agency should charge more than 10% markup on the per hour cost of an a full time programmer of average ability (let alone an entry level code monkey) is pretty rare. If you do come on site, all the employees that you are not actually making much more than tend to resent (if not ostracize) you based on poor assumptions of what your billing rate translates to in any case.
One thing that would help would be to end the practice of granting non-taxable benefits that don't actually show up on the W-2 at the end of the year, and require companies to list employees actual compensation costs, all benefits and taxes included - pensions, health care, employers share of social security, workers comp, etc. There are a lot of employees (especially in government and unionized jobs) who are compensated nearly twice as much as what is indicated on their W-2.
You can't just copy the data in a digital map, unless the data is indistinguishable from the facts the data is a representation of, and there was no creativity, selection, and arrangement involved.
Facts are not copyrightable. With some few exceptions, representations are. In most cases, data is not a collection of facts, it is a representation of facts. The nature of what happened on the way from fact to representation can make the latter protectable by copyright in a manner the former is not.
No. Maps are not facts, maps are representations of facts. Big difference. You can copy the actual facts, assuming you can tell what the facts are, but you cannot copy the representation of those facts, if there was any creativity, selection, or discretionary arrangement involved in creating that representation.
It is like the difference between a photo and what the photo is taken of. Photos are generally protectable by copyright, due to the creativity involved in choosing a time, place, angle, lighting, etc. Maps are similar, except with different creative elements, most notably selection.
So for example, a newspaper can pull facts out of another newspaper and then write their own story based on (and including) those facts.
In the United States, there is a common law "hot news" doctrine which may prevent a newspaper from doing just that.
In the United States, there is a "hot news" doctrine that protects the distribution of time sensitive information like stock ticker prices to some degree, in addition to whatever contractual requirements which may be placed upon you by the source of the data themselves. As far as I know, this is a creation of the courts, and has no statutory basis in federal law. It is common law all the same, however.
A 3D model of a building, as such, is of course copyrightable. However, the facts within the 3D model, to the degree that they are facts, are not. The same issue applies to maps. Maps are copyrightable. The facts represented by the map, however, to the degree, and only to the degree, that they are facts are not protectable by copyright, no matter how much effort was engaged in collecting them.
So ironically, the more accurate a model or a map is, the greater the content of true facts (rather than selective approximations), and thus the more susceptible to be used as a legtitimate source of facts for models and maps created by others. Of course determining what is and what isn't a fact in the original map or model is a major burden on the latter, as it should be. If you do not have two or more independent sources for the same information, it can be rather risky.
That means that for all practical purposes there is absolutely no way that one can run a 3D model through some sort of automated process that extracts all the facts and creates a new, unencumbered 3D model. Somebody has to decide what really is a fact, and to do that reliably he or she needs at at least two independent sources to review, and then create a new model based on considered judgment of what the facts of the matter actually are.
See, the conservative mindset is that lack of success is a moral failure on the part of the failed
I have never met a conservative who believed that. I don't think I have ever read a conservative who believed that - not a modern one anyway. There might be some theological odd balls out there somewhere who believe that all success is a sign of divine favor, but that is too much for even (most) Calvinists to swallow. It is like claiming God favored both Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki, or Borodino and Waterloo.
The problem with (big) banks is they want the public to shoulder the risks, while their shareholders take the reward. That is perverse. "Too big to fail" must die. Playing the lottery with government guaranteed deposits equally so.
Why is it, by the way, that we let banks borrow from the Fed at the lowest possible interest rate, but not private citizens? Wouldn't it be rather more fair if any private entity with adequate credit could borrow from the Fed at the same rate the banks do? I mean, why (for example) can't Google borrow from the Fed?
The big news here is this: Openness and choice: We'll operate an "open access" network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we'll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way.
This is similar to the UTOPIA model - A layer 2 network infrastructure that multiple ISPs can use to provide layer 3 services. If other ISPs step up to the plate it is not entirely clear that Google needs to be an ISP on their own network at all. Google wants essentially what UTOPIA wants, and the less capital they have to put into it, the better.
I suspect Google's real goal here is to jump start the provider independent network market - the one that the Baby Bells don't want to be in any more. It is certainly in Google's strategic interest to do so. The Baby Bells would rather set up walled gardens and charge royalties on everything. Essentially the exact opposite of the intent of the Communications Act of 1934.
The only way to fix that is to either establish provider independent local access, or make ISPs into (heavily regulated) common carriers. There will never be enough facilities based competition to guarantee neutrality by any other means. Ten fibers to your house? I don't think so.
BASIC is pretty much the reason why Microsoft exists. Altair BASIC, Applesoft Basic, MBASIC, Atari BASIC, Commodore BASIC, BASICA, GWBASIC, AmigaBasic, QuickBASIC, Visual Basic, Visual Basic for Applications, ...
Virtually every home / personal computer shipped (in the U.S.) during the early 1980s, including the original IBM PC, had Microsoft software in ROM. Those that didn't usually came with a derivative of Microsoft BASIC as part of the operating system. This factor should not be underestimated.
Many vendors have alarmingly thin information about their products on their web site and in their brochures, unfortunately. Alarmingly thin as in doesn't answer some of the most basic questions any technical person would ask about the product.
In cases like these I can't decide whether the marketing people are lazy, ignorant, or incompetent.
Even if Macmillan had no direct control over what price their books retailed at, the wholesale price they offer would certainly force Amazon to sell Macmillan's books at some reasonable markup over that, if they sold them at all. Amazon certainly cannot sell a $12 wholesale book for $9.99 - not if they expect to make a profit, at any rate.
Now if Macmillan was prohibiting retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books for less than $15.99 that would be a more serious issue. I am not sure that is the case here though.
Oh, btw - the cache has to be SRAM so that if the power goes out, it can write the files when it comes back on.
That requires a battery or supercapacitor on the drive itself, and while some (expensive) SSDs have the latter, the feature is still relatively rare.
Of course any serious ("enterprise") application should have a UPS, but uninterruptible power supplies (or the power distribution networks) can and do fail from time to time, for a variety of reasons, so adding a supercapacitor to protect the (block level) integrity of writes that are in progress is an excellent idea.
Even better, persistent caches allow a storage device to confirm synchronous writes much faster than otherwise, which is a big deal in certain applications, notably databases and email servers. Of course if you are so unfortunate as to be using RAID 5 with these devices, you will need a battery backed RAID controller anyway, in order to close the infamous RAID 5 "write hole".
Lastly, unless you are using a transactional filesystem, battery backed storage caches will not prevent partially written files from being corrupted if the system loses power, because they are block oriented, not file oriented devices, and are much too small to hold new copies of non-trivial files in any case. A well designed program can work around that limitation though (e.g. write temporary file, fsync, rename) as long as the filesystem itself is journalled.
Your numbers are for "Computer Scientists" - generally with a Ph.D. The numbers from the BLS for "Computer Software Engineers and Computer Programmers" are lower:
"In May 2008, median annual wages of wage-and-salary computer applications software engineers were $85,430. The middle 50 percent earned between $67,790 and $104,870. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $53,720, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $128,870"
"Median annual wages of wage-and-salary computer programmers were $69,620 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $52,640 and $89,720 a year. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $40,080, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $111,450."
See http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos303.htm
That is why the government should pay Microsoft to backport SNI to Windows XP and 2000. Those machines aren't going away any time soon.
Is there any physical reason why a router couldn't do the following to transparently enable ipv6-oblivious software to effectively "inverse-NAT the rest of the world"?
No, there isn't. "NAT46" routers do just that, and one way or another they will become common in the next several years. Comcast is working with ISC to develop a NAT46 solution they call an address family transition router. Cisco has similar support in the works too.
Comcast figures people will be running one or more IPv4 only devices on residential networks for a long time, so the need for a NAT46 solution of some type will be nearly universal.
There is also NAT64 which works the other way - connecting IPv6 only clients to IPv4 only servers. It has the advantage of being much simpler and easier to implement than NAT46 is.
Things are supposed to auto-configure in IPv6 land
Servers are not going to auto-configure any time soon. DNS requires that servers have stable, static IP addresses. Using the MAC as part of the address won't work, because it makes it difficult to impossible to switch network cards, short of statically assigning a custom MAC which defeats the point.
For various reasons an *enormous* amount of security is done using IP address masks. None of that auto-configures with IPv6 either, or at least not yet. That is all lots of work for server and network administrators, work which generally has to be duplicated for IPv4 and IPv6.