Why would windows explorer need to support playlists? doesn't the phone itself have that ability?
This concept of having to have a special app to do ANYTHING on your phone is ridiculous and reminds me of the state of computing more than 10 years ago. These days I expect to be able to plug in any device to any computer and simply drag and drop, no software install required. There are standards for a reason.
But certainly, people wear gold, and electronics and various other industries use gold for its amazing maliability and conductivity.
Minor nit-pick, gold is actually not a great conductor, it's prized property is that it doesn't generally corrode, that's why connectors are usually gold plated, and not entirely gold. the plating keeps the corrosion at bay, and the underelying metal conducts better.
Gold is "valuable" for it's uses in many industries, including electronics, chemistry, and jewlery. People also drive the price up because they think it will protect them from a crash of fiat currency, but I don't really believe that people would revert to using gold if civilization fell apart, more likely people would barter for things of more immediate importance, food, shelter, heating fuel, clothing, etc. Gold would have relatively little value in such a society.
Except that I don't want to constantly fight with the iphone that simply can't do any of the things I want it to, has an extremely inconsistent user interface, and is only useful for fun little fad-hobby activity.
I buy an android because it just works. I can get on with my business/social life without constantly running in to artificial barriers put up by Apple.
I never said that they spent more on marketing than anyone else. I said they had a better marketing department. There is a huge difference.
Only Apple can convince people to spend more for an inferior product and still feel smug about it. They have the best marketing department in the industry.
And don't worry, I'm not confusing anything, Apple doesn't have a history of selling high quality products, only expensive ones (you made the same mistake that you made in your first line, assuming that more money means better)
Don't mix up usability, polish and user interface with marketing.
Considering that Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor, there is ZERO risk of me mixing up the two.
Apple has marketing, they have convinced people to pay more for an inferior product, and feel smug about doing so. It's a truly impressive feat. They have among the absolute best marketing department on the planet.
Except that doing things well is also not their strong suit, and "better than anyone else" is a pathetic joke, they make products that work poorly, with horrid user interfaces, limited features, extreme lock in... and market them really well.
Apple does one thing extremely well, better than any of their competitors, and among the best of any company in the world. It isn't engineering, it isn't design, it isn't usability. It's marketing, and they are proof positive how gullible large portions of the world are.
More likely due to the loss of marketting might since Steve Jobs died. They never had "innovation" as the iphone has consistently been behind other leading devices (usually by a year or more) on features.
Apple is brilliant at marketting, but that's really about it.
So far it seems that they do have a better marketting department. At least for large chunks of audience that don't know any better.
FTFY
Apple doesn't bother making a better product, they never really have. They have brilliant marketting though such that people who don't know better flock to the thing in droves because it's an iphone. They know what an iphone is, and equate it with smart phone. never mind that the competing phones do more, do it better, and do it at a lower price. The iphone is consistently a year or more behind the major Android players in features, the usability and interface really improved since the first iphone launched (and it badly needs to) and yet they manage to get people to line up every year to buy the new iphone, even when there's no real change from the last one.
There is one thing Apple is absolutely amazing at, and it has nothing to do with physical devices or software. It's all about the hype, and they sure know how to do that well.
Sure you can, and then you can use only wifi in your house and have no ability to communicate with the outside world when you leave your basement.
Or you can spring for a cell phone plan with a carrier, at which point you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it whether you take it or not. (Most providers do not offer any discount to the contract plan if you bring your own phone, and pay as you go is always more expensive than a contract)
Now there are signs (as this article states) that this may be changing. And while I don't know about the prices going down as claimed in the article, I would say that in the long run it can only be a good thing for competition and for the end customers. I would say that the ideal situation is one where the cellular companies give the customer the choice, I should be allowed to finance an expensive device over the term of the contract if I want, I should also have the option to bring my own phone and save the cost of the financing. The end result would be stiffer competition between providers as they know you can take your device and run, and at the same time, more competition in the phone retail market as more retailers spring up to sell phones which should allow more variety in devices, as well as eventually lower device prices. (right now you pretty much have to buy your phone through your cell phone provider, because nobody in their right mind would buy a device elsewhere knowing that they still have to pay for the one included in the plan even if they don't take it)
I don't see how that's a problem. If a site is advertising IPv6 availability, and you have a real IPv6 connection, you won't "fail over" at all. If they don't advertise IPv6 availability, then you don't even try them on IPv6.
Your issue should only occur for a site that claims to be available on IPv6 and isn't. And I don't see how that's any different than a site having a bad DNS entry on IPv4 either. (except that in the IPv6 vs IPv4 thing there is actually a failover possibility instead of outright failure, so it's actually less of a problem)
There is zero risk to turning on IPv6 now. Assuming proper ISP level CGNAT back to IPv4 for those sites that haven't migrated yet.
NAT already "destroyed the internet as we knew it" (but we got used to the "destroyed" internet), CGNAT destroys the internet as we know it even further (we'll get used to that too). If the ISP cared at all about not destroying the internet as we know it, they'd implement IPv6 instead of this disaster.
I highly doubt it. They have their own special IP range specifically so that they can still have the other routers behind it and double NAT, if they planned to just give every customer a ton of IPs they could have used one of the existing private ranges.
No, they'll continue to give each customer 1-2 IPs as they do now, and double-NAT will be the norm. There's no reason to expect they'd have anything less than an entire node on an IP.
And that is the one and only acceptable way to run CGNAT, as an IPv6 to IPv4 compatibility workaround.
I don't deny that CGNAT is necessary, but I believe it should only be used to allow native IPv6 clients to connect to the current IPv4 internet. Anything else just makes the problem worse.
But right now it's the ISPs themselves forcing IPv4 use, while at the same time telling us that IPv4 use is the problem. If they do this by issuing real IPv6 addresses, with CGNAT to IPv4, I actually don't have a problem with it. but using it in full IPv4 mode just makes the existing situation worse.
Almost none. That's the point. Carrier grade NAT is not one of those things you can possibly implement without anyone noticing. Sure you'll find that many people don't notice, but some people always will. Anyone who uses any P2P technology will notice. Anyone with any tech knowledge will notice.
This is hardly an impossible problem. Start with the new customers, and any equipment swaps, service plan upgrades, etc. You'll get most of your customer base within about 5 years, then you can go after any that remain.
I do installation and repair for an ISP, The ADSL modems we stopped using 10 years ago are pretty much all gone (I haven't seen one in about a year, and it was probably almost a year before that that I saw the previous one) the ones we stopped using 5 years ago are rare (I might see one every month or two). At this point I'd say I mainly see a mix of the ones we stopped using 2-3 years ago, and the current ones with only exceedingly rare exceptions.
Yes, because I'm sure the ISP will never keep logs which would allow such identification, and in any case they would never provide them to other corporations or the government upon request...
So far they are using their own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse not to do so. "we won't let anyone use it because nobody is using it"
Also why implement IPv6 where every device in the world can easily have an IP, when they currently charge so much for extra IPs? and with CGNAT they can even get to the point where you don't get ANY IP without paying extra.
What incentive is there to ever go to IPv6 in this situation?
The question is where this leads in the future. First it will be free opt out, then it will be a discount if you take the NAT, then it will be the standard with an option to pay more for non-NAT, and then it will be only "premium" connections that even have that option. We've seen this sort of evolution on many "features". The carriers will make money off it.
I'd rather they quit using their own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse to not implement IPv6. "nobody's using it, so we won't implement it" (how are they supposed to use it if you refuse to implement it???)
I understand that IPv4 addresses are getting scarce, but I think they'd be better off to start this same way, but with IPv6 and a NAT like gateway to IPv4, it ends up with a similar short term situation for the customers (with much traffic heading over the IPv4 tunnel), but it also helps the IPv6 upgrade along a little bit, and doesn't hurt these customers in the long term once more becomes available over IPv6
It's one thing to have 3 computers on a home network requesting open ports. Try it with 20,000 computers. It doesn't scale well, and you quickly run out of "desirable" ports.
But what if it's 20,000 customer's on an IP? and what if every time you reboot your modem you stay on the same node behind the same NAT with the same IP?
This seems far more likely than 4 or 16 customers and the possibility of a different IP when you reboot. It would more likely be at the node level, and you'd be on the same IP pretty much all the time.
I just find it interesting that they claim they have to NAT because nobody uses IPv6, and yet the reason that nobody uses IPv6 is that they refuse to offer it! Quit making excuses, and start offering IPv6 already. don't use your own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse why you should implement carrier grade NAT instead.
I agree. However it's actually worse than the picture you paint. because you aren't just analyzing the chance of product failure, you also have to calculate the likelihood of actually being able to claim the warranty. Most vendors are very good at weaseling out of claims! (There's a small scratch on the case from normal wear and tear? no warranty for you! must have been abuse to cause the damage!) (you fixed it yourself 2 years ago for a completely unrelated issues? no warranty for you!) (you didn't follow the super secret maintenance routine nobody told you about? no warranty for you!)
Did you ever take them up on it? because I can tell you from my experiences with future shop (same company as best buy) that their extended warranty wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I had a camera die on me within the extended warranty period. no physical damage at all, not caused by a drop or anything else, it simply decided to throw an error message one day and wouldn't boot. When I took the camera back in to the store they told me they'd have to send it away and would let me know in a couple of weeks if it was eligible for the warranty. A few weeks later I was told my warranty claim had been denied due to "abuse". After escalating it through several levels of management and refusing to leave the store until it was addressed, they agreed to replace the camera, but not with an equivalent model, but only with the cheapest piece of garbage they had on their shelf at the time. In the end I managed to get half the cost of an equivalent camera to the one that had broken under warranty. And they had the audacity to try to sell me another extended warranty on the new camera!
And that was one of my better extended warranty experiences, I had one on a used car that was denied due to "pre-existing conditions" (I thought that's exactly what warranties were supposed to cover!) I never did get anywhere on that one. I tried to take my roofer up on his installation warranty after discovering that he had caused a leak in the roof, only to find out that he was out of business, and his parent company told me the warranty was only with the individual roofer, not the company...
I will NEVER under any circumstances pay an extra cent to buy an extended warranty on any product. They are fraud, plain and simple.
Nothing "took them so long" because nothing has changed. This is simply a press release explaining that everyone who thought things were different because it's bitcoins were wrong, and that the existing rules still apply.
And honestly, nobody should be even the slightest bit surprised. If you knew anything about taxes (which everyone who pays taxes should!) you'd know that barter transactions are taxable, and commodities transactions are taxable. Bitcoins obviously fall in to one or both of those categories, so they are taxable. All this is is a reminder that nothing changed.
Actually lower intelligence scores tend to correlate to higher depression levels. (as do lower income levels, lower levels of education, and many other societal causes)
It appears to me that they didn't control for much of anything, and the biggest one to control for would be likelihood of a religious vs non-religious person becoming depressed in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would windows explorer need to support playlists? doesn't the phone itself have that ability?
This concept of having to have a special app to do ANYTHING on your phone is ridiculous and reminds me of the state of computing more than 10 years ago. These days I expect to be able to plug in any device to any computer and simply drag and drop, no software install required. There are standards for a reason.
But certainly, people wear gold, and electronics and various other industries use gold for its amazing maliability and conductivity.
Minor nit-pick, gold is actually not a great conductor, it's prized property is that it doesn't generally corrode, that's why connectors are usually gold plated, and not entirely gold. the plating keeps the corrosion at bay, and the underelying metal conducts better.
Gold is "valuable" for it's uses in many industries, including electronics, chemistry, and jewlery. People also drive the price up because they think it will protect them from a crash of fiat currency, but I don't really believe that people would revert to using gold if civilization fell apart, more likely people would barter for things of more immediate importance, food, shelter, heating fuel, clothing, etc. Gold would have relatively little value in such a society.
Except that I don't want to constantly fight with the iphone that simply can't do any of the things I want it to, has an extremely inconsistent user interface, and is only useful for fun little fad-hobby activity.
I buy an android because it just works. I can get on with my business/social life without constantly running in to artificial barriers put up by Apple.
I never said that they spent more on marketing than anyone else. I said they had a better marketing department. There is a huge difference.
Only Apple can convince people to spend more for an inferior product and still feel smug about it. They have the best marketing department in the industry.
And don't worry, I'm not confusing anything, Apple doesn't have a history of selling high quality products, only expensive ones (you made the same mistake that you made in your first line, assuming that more money means better)
Don't mix up usability, polish and user interface with marketing.
Considering that Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor, there is ZERO risk of me mixing up the two.
Apple has marketing, they have convinced people to pay more for an inferior product, and feel smug about doing so. It's a truly impressive feat. They have among the absolute best marketing department on the planet.
Except that doing things well is also not their strong suit, and "better than anyone else" is a pathetic joke, they make products that work poorly, with horrid user interfaces, limited features, extreme lock in... and market them really well.
Apple does one thing extremely well, better than any of their competitors, and among the best of any company in the world. It isn't engineering, it isn't design, it isn't usability. It's marketing, and they are proof positive how gullible large portions of the world are.
More likely due to the loss of marketting might since Steve Jobs died. They never had "innovation" as the iphone has consistently been behind other leading devices (usually by a year or more) on features.
Apple is brilliant at marketting, but that's really about it.
So far it seems that they do have a better marketting department. At least for large chunks of audience that don't know any better.
FTFY
Apple doesn't bother making a better product, they never really have. They have brilliant marketting though such that people who don't know better flock to the thing in droves because it's an iphone. They know what an iphone is, and equate it with smart phone. never mind that the competing phones do more, do it better, and do it at a lower price. The iphone is consistently a year or more behind the major Android players in features, the usability and interface really improved since the first iphone launched (and it badly needs to) and yet they manage to get people to line up every year to buy the new iphone, even when there's no real change from the last one.
There is one thing Apple is absolutely amazing at, and it has nothing to do with physical devices or software. It's all about the hype, and they sure know how to do that well.
Sure you can, and then you can use only wifi in your house and have no ability to communicate with the outside world when you leave your basement.
Or you can spring for a cell phone plan with a carrier, at which point you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it whether you take it or not. (Most providers do not offer any discount to the contract plan if you bring your own phone, and pay as you go is always more expensive than a contract)
Now there are signs (as this article states) that this may be changing. And while I don't know about the prices going down as claimed in the article, I would say that in the long run it can only be a good thing for competition and for the end customers. I would say that the ideal situation is one where the cellular companies give the customer the choice, I should be allowed to finance an expensive device over the term of the contract if I want, I should also have the option to bring my own phone and save the cost of the financing. The end result would be stiffer competition between providers as they know you can take your device and run, and at the same time, more competition in the phone retail market as more retailers spring up to sell phones which should allow more variety in devices, as well as eventually lower device prices. (right now you pretty much have to buy your phone through your cell phone provider, because nobody in their right mind would buy a device elsewhere knowing that they still have to pay for the one included in the plan even if they don't take it)
I don't see how that's a problem. If a site is advertising IPv6 availability, and you have a real IPv6 connection, you won't "fail over" at all. If they don't advertise IPv6 availability, then you don't even try them on IPv6.
Your issue should only occur for a site that claims to be available on IPv6 and isn't. And I don't see how that's any different than a site having a bad DNS entry on IPv4 either. (except that in the IPv6 vs IPv4 thing there is actually a failover possibility instead of outright failure, so it's actually less of a problem)
There is zero risk to turning on IPv6 now. Assuming proper ISP level CGNAT back to IPv4 for those sites that haven't migrated yet.
NAT already "destroyed the internet as we knew it" (but we got used to the "destroyed" internet), CGNAT destroys the internet as we know it even further (we'll get used to that too). If the ISP cared at all about not destroying the internet as we know it, they'd implement IPv6 instead of this disaster.
I highly doubt it. They have their own special IP range specifically so that they can still have the other routers behind it and double NAT, if they planned to just give every customer a ton of IPs they could have used one of the existing private ranges.
No, they'll continue to give each customer 1-2 IPs as they do now, and double-NAT will be the norm. There's no reason to expect they'd have anything less than an entire node on an IP.
And that is the one and only acceptable way to run CGNAT, as an IPv6 to IPv4 compatibility workaround.
I don't deny that CGNAT is necessary, but I believe it should only be used to allow native IPv6 clients to connect to the current IPv4 internet. Anything else just makes the problem worse.
But right now it's the ISPs themselves forcing IPv4 use, while at the same time telling us that IPv4 use is the problem.
If they do this by issuing real IPv6 addresses, with CGNAT to IPv4, I actually don't have a problem with it. but using it in full IPv4 mode just makes the existing situation worse.
Almost none. That's the point. Carrier grade NAT is not one of those things you can possibly implement without anyone noticing. Sure you'll find that many people don't notice, but some people always will. Anyone who uses any P2P technology will notice. Anyone with any tech knowledge will notice.
This is hardly an impossible problem.
Start with the new customers, and any equipment swaps, service plan upgrades, etc. You'll get most of your customer base within about 5 years, then you can go after any that remain.
I do installation and repair for an ISP, The ADSL modems we stopped using 10 years ago are pretty much all gone (I haven't seen one in about a year, and it was probably almost a year before that that I saw the previous one) the ones we stopped using 5 years ago are rare (I might see one every month or two). At this point I'd say I mainly see a mix of the ones we stopped using 2-3 years ago, and the current ones with only exceedingly rare exceptions.
Yes, because I'm sure the ISP will never keep logs which would allow such identification, and in any case they would never provide them to other corporations or the government upon request...
If they can keep up this game? never.
So far they are using their own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse not to do so. "we won't let anyone use it because nobody is using it"
Also why implement IPv6 where every device in the world can easily have an IP, when they currently charge so much for extra IPs? and with CGNAT they can even get to the point where you don't get ANY IP without paying extra.
What incentive is there to ever go to IPv6 in this situation?
For now.
The question is where this leads in the future. First it will be free opt out, then it will be a discount if you take the NAT, then it will be the standard with an option to pay more for non-NAT, and then it will be only "premium" connections that even have that option. We've seen this sort of evolution on many "features". The carriers will make money off it.
I'd rather they quit using their own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse to not implement IPv6. "nobody's using it, so we won't implement it" (how are they supposed to use it if you refuse to implement it???)
I understand that IPv4 addresses are getting scarce, but I think they'd be better off to start this same way, but with IPv6 and a NAT like gateway to IPv4, it ends up with a similar short term situation for the customers (with much traffic heading over the IPv4 tunnel), but it also helps the IPv6 upgrade along a little bit, and doesn't hurt these customers in the long term once more becomes available over IPv6
It's one thing to have 3 computers on a home network requesting open ports. Try it with 20,000 computers. It doesn't scale well, and you quickly run out of "desirable" ports.
But what if it's 20,000 customer's on an IP? and what if every time you reboot your modem you stay on the same node behind the same NAT with the same IP?
This seems far more likely than 4 or 16 customers and the possibility of a different IP when you reboot. It would more likely be at the node level, and you'd be on the same IP pretty much all the time.
I just find it interesting that they claim they have to NAT because nobody uses IPv6, and yet the reason that nobody uses IPv6 is that they refuse to offer it!
Quit making excuses, and start offering IPv6 already. don't use your own failure to implement IPv6 as an excuse why you should implement carrier grade NAT instead.
I agree. However it's actually worse than the picture you paint. because you aren't just analyzing the chance of product failure, you also have to calculate the likelihood of actually being able to claim the warranty. Most vendors are very good at weaseling out of claims! (There's a small scratch on the case from normal wear and tear? no warranty for you! must have been abuse to cause the damage!) (you fixed it yourself 2 years ago for a completely unrelated issues? no warranty for you!) (you didn't follow the super secret maintenance routine nobody told you about? no warranty for you!)
Did you ever take them up on it? because I can tell you from my experiences with future shop (same company as best buy) that their extended warranty wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I had a camera die on me within the extended warranty period. no physical damage at all, not caused by a drop or anything else, it simply decided to throw an error message one day and wouldn't boot. When I took the camera back in to the store they told me they'd have to send it away and would let me know in a couple of weeks if it was eligible for the warranty. A few weeks later I was told my warranty claim had been denied due to "abuse". After escalating it through several levels of management and refusing to leave the store until it was addressed, they agreed to replace the camera, but not with an equivalent model, but only with the cheapest piece of garbage they had on their shelf at the time. In the end I managed to get half the cost of an equivalent camera to the one that had broken under warranty. And they had the audacity to try to sell me another extended warranty on the new camera!
And that was one of my better extended warranty experiences, I had one on a used car that was denied due to "pre-existing conditions" (I thought that's exactly what warranties were supposed to cover!) I never did get anywhere on that one. I tried to take my roofer up on his installation warranty after discovering that he had caused a leak in the roof, only to find out that he was out of business, and his parent company told me the warranty was only with the individual roofer, not the company...
I will NEVER under any circumstances pay an extra cent to buy an extended warranty on any product. They are fraud, plain and simple.
Nothing "took them so long" because nothing has changed. This is simply a press release explaining that everyone who thought things were different because it's bitcoins were wrong, and that the existing rules still apply.
And honestly, nobody should be even the slightest bit surprised. If you knew anything about taxes (which everyone who pays taxes should!) you'd know that barter transactions are taxable, and commodities transactions are taxable. Bitcoins obviously fall in to one or both of those categories, so they are taxable. All this is is a reminder that nothing changed.
Actually lower intelligence scores tend to correlate to higher depression levels. (as do lower income levels, lower levels of education, and many other societal causes)
It appears to me that they didn't control for much of anything, and the biggest one to control for would be likelihood of a religious vs non-religious person becoming depressed in the first place.