Chip cards have been in use for a very long time in France. They all have mag stripes, mainly because that's what most ATM use anyway, but also for use abroad. The mag stripe contains information as to whether the card also has a chip, so that even when an authorisation (the terminal phoning the acquirer) is not required, it can decide to deny the transaction preemptively if the card is supposed to have a pin and the terminal is supposed to be able to read it.
In that I case I guess the bank is just being incompetent, and failed to implement the ultra-advanced algorithm:
if (card.haschip() && terminal.haschipreader())
return MUSTUSECHIP; else
return ITSOKTOUSETHEMAGSTRIPE;
Alright, let's say China's interventions are of the same nature as the US's. We have NK, India, Tibet and Vietnam.
On the US side we have SK, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Brasil, Palestine, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
The ones spelled out at Nuremberg and in the UN charter.
Take the definition of "crime against peace;" it's the supreme crime in international law in that it contains all others, according to judge Jackson. Well China has never been guilty of it, while the US has repeteadly -- in fact, every single decade since WWII -- violated it.
I'm not saying they're bad principles. Quite the opposite. But you'd expect that the country that basically originated them would be especially cautious about applying them. The chinese government might a murderous dictatorship, but they're not violating international law on a regular basis.
The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia,
I'm certainly not going to praise their defense of the Khmer Rouge, but that was both a direct response to an attack upon an ally, and a very brief intervention (less than a month).
India initiated a Forward Policy in which it placed outposts along the border, including several north of the McMahon Line, the eastern portion of a Line of Actual Control proclaimed by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1959.
I'm very much sympathetic to India's position, however it was clearly encroaching China's claimed border.
The Chinese intervened upon NK's request. That does not make it right, but it's hardly comparable to any example of US interventionism. Even if you take South Vietnam's puppet government as a legitimate sovereign power, keep in mind that US forces did not just attack the north but also the south that was supposedly allied with it, and we're not even talking about the massacres in Cambodia.
As for Tibet, and again not implying any support for Chinese policies there, well it's as much "interventionism outside their border" as the annexation of Texas or, more recently, Hawaii.
The innumerable right-wing government in South America.
The splending Vietnam war.
All courtesy of the benevolent US war machine.
As for Haiti, what did I just learn? Fucking scientologists have the support of the US Air Force and were allowed to land with their bullshit emeters, while a plane carrying a Doctors Without Borders field hospital was turned away. Oh thank you so very much.
I see this keeps repeating, but this is utter bullshit. US military is needed just as much as a kick in the balls. Europe certainly doesn't need it. We have nukes (and we should get rid of them). The other day some commenter said that we needed the US military to defend us against Russia. Really? What's the US military going to do anyway should Russia decide to attack? Despite their Chicago school of economics-inflicted state of dereliction, they still have enough nukes in working order to pulverize the globe's surface 10 times over.
The only thing the US military does those days is war crimes. Lots of them.
When you have both stacks, and one of them has all you need (IPv4) and the other has nothing the other doesn't (IPv6), you end up not using the latter, and/or it gets neglected.
That's why Google had to implement their big DNS kludge: many IPv6 connections are fucked, but nobody notices because nobody uses it.
They will get less peers on their bittorrent,
No they won't. Because everybody who has an IPv6 address on bittorrent ALSO HAS an IPv4 address.
Again, I have native IPv6 at home, and it's completely useless. I mean it's nice to have it, as a sysadmin, so I can play with it to learn the thing. But it's completely useless, and will remain so until everyone has migrated -- i.e. never if things don't change. And things will only change when a form of Nat is implemented.
What you describe is "niche", not gradual. Gradual would be a scheme whereby usage grows steadily and significantly. With what you describe, traffic grows very little, for a very limited set of applications (torrents and your port 22 traffic).
But more importantly, it means that there's no reason to move to IPv6 if you have addresses. And those who don't are fucked because they can't do jack shit with their shiny new IPv6 addresses. Well, jack shit except warez and trying to hax0rize your boxen.
I have dual stack at home, natively. For all intents and purposes, IPv6 is useless to me. As a result, support is worse. If it goes down, I don't really notice it, and my ISP doesn't give much of a fuck ("err, use IPv4").
Furthermore, as long as not everybody has dual stack, everybody suffers from IPv4 address exhaustion. In other words, the dual stack "solution" means that we have to use IPv4 until every single host (or at least every host we need to talk to) has implemented IPv6. In reality, it's clear that 20 years in the future there will still be idiots still running IPv4, because they can't be fucked to migrate. When I see how networking is broken in many enterprises, I don't see how they'll ever migrate to IPv6. I could tell you about all the brokenness I've witnessed, even in companies that are supposed to be somewhat technically oriented, and it's fucking scary.
Forget dual stack. And don't call it a "solution," it's not just ridiculous, it's delusional.
Yeah that's actually what I meant. The scenario I see happening with NAT64 in place is that residential and mobile hosts get IPv6 addresses first, and are able to connect to enterprise-y legacy IPv4 services. Such services have no real need to connect back to residential subscribers usually, and if they do they just have to implement IPv6. Seeing how most enterprise networks are run (poorly), this is the most likely scenario. But until recently this was simply impossible to implement.
It'd be awesome if it was possible to shut those routers down, but it's never going to happen. Consider: there's still plenty of sites (even major websites, CNN until last year for example) that are incompatible with ECN (explicit congestion notification), despite the fact that it's almost 10 years old, and that it is theoretically backward-compatible.
If people can't get fucked to implement IPv4 properly, I have little hope that they'll switch to IPv6 swiftly. The only sensible scenario is one where people migrate little by little, and interop is possible during that time.
From the beginning of IPv6, something was missing: the possibility for IPv4 only hosts to reach IPv6 only hosts. The solution is a form of nat, called NAT64, but a few months ago it was just a vague proposal AFAIK. As long as this is not solved, the transition to IPv6 *cannot* work. There is a simple reason: the planned transition involves ALL hosts talking both IPv4 and IPv6. When you speak both, inevitably the least used IPv6 is not supported well, and people end up using only IPv4.
It's so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.
Stolen from the comments in the Independent: Why do British police go about in threes? One can read, one can write, the other keeps an eye on the 2 dangerous subversive intellectuals.
Seems appropriate. Although I would say that French police aren't any better, they just go about in pairs.
Slashdot Mirror
you shouldn't be allowed on the internet.
Chip cards have been in use for a very long time in France. They all have mag stripes, mainly because that's what most ATM use anyway, but also for use abroad. The mag stripe contains information as to whether the card also has a chip, so that even when an authorisation (the terminal phoning the acquirer) is not required, it can decide to deny the transaction preemptively if the card is supposed to have a pin and the terminal is supposed to be able to read it.
In that I case I guess the bank is just being incompetent, and failed to implement the ultra-advanced algorithm:
if (card.haschip() && terminal.haschipreader())
return MUSTUSECHIP;
else
return ITSOKTOUSETHEMAGSTRIPE;
I'm not relativising China's record. I'm saying they are not breaking international law. YOU are relativising US crimes.
Alright, let's say China's interventions are of the same nature as the US's. We have NK, India, Tibet and Vietnam.
On the US side we have SK, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Brasil, Palestine, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
They are cogs in the machine.
Look up on the history of the island. It used to be an independent nation, until the US invaded and deposed its queen in the XIXth century.
The ones spelled out at Nuremberg and in the UN charter.
Take the definition of "crime against peace;" it's the supreme crime in international law in that it contains all others, according to judge Jackson. Well China has never been guilty of it, while the US has repeteadly -- in fact, every single decade since WWII -- violated it.
I'm not saying they're bad principles. Quite the opposite. But you'd expect that the country that basically originated them would be especially cautious about applying them. The chinese government might a murderous dictatorship, but they're not violating international law on a regular basis.
The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia,
I'm certainly not going to praise their defense of the Khmer Rouge, but that was both a direct response to an attack upon an ally, and a very brief intervention (less than a month).
India initiated a Forward Policy in which it placed outposts along the border, including several north of the McMahon Line, the eastern portion of a Line of Actual Control proclaimed by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1959.
I'm very much sympathetic to India's position, however it was clearly encroaching China's claimed border.
The Chinese intervened upon NK's request. That does not make it right, but it's hardly comparable to any example of US interventionism. Even if you take South Vietnam's puppet government as a legitimate sovereign power, keep in mind that US forces did not just attack the north but also the south that was supposedly allied with it, and we're not even talking about the massacres in Cambodia.
As for Tibet, and again not implying any support for Chinese policies there, well it's as much "interventionism outside their border" as the annexation of Texas or, more recently, Hawaii.
The overthrow of Mossadegh.
The assassination of Allende.
The support to the terrorist Contras.
The innumerable right-wing government in South America.
The splending Vietnam war.
All courtesy of the benevolent US war machine.
As for Haiti, what did I just learn? Fucking scientologists have the support of the US Air Force and were allowed to land with their bullshit emeters, while a plane carrying a Doctors Without Borders field hospital was turned away. Oh thank you so very much.
interventionism outside their border.
Go ahead.
(Not holding breath)
Defense against what? You don't say. Against Saddam Hussein's WMDs? Oups.
Believe your own criminal propaganda all you want, nobody else's buying it.
I see this keeps repeating, but this is utter bullshit. US military is needed just as much as a kick in the balls. Europe certainly doesn't need it. We have nukes (and we should get rid of them). The other day some commenter said that we needed the US military to defend us against Russia. Really? What's the US military going to do anyway should Russia decide to attack? Despite their Chicago school of economics-inflicted state of dereliction, they still have enough nukes in working order to pulverize the globe's surface 10 times over.
The only thing the US military does those days is war crimes. Lots of them.
The song was barely audible, so much so that I (and I guess many others) wondered how they found out.
When you have both stacks, and one of them has all you need (IPv4) and the other has nothing the other doesn't (IPv6), you end up not using the latter, and/or it gets neglected.
That's why Google had to implement their big DNS kludge: many IPv6 connections are fucked, but nobody notices because nobody uses it.
They will get less peers on their bittorrent,
No they won't. Because everybody who has an IPv6 address on bittorrent ALSO HAS an IPv4 address.
Again, I have native IPv6 at home, and it's completely useless. I mean it's nice to have it, as a sysadmin, so I can play with it to learn the thing. But it's completely useless, and will remain so until everyone has migrated -- i.e. never if things don't change. And things will only change when a form of Nat is implemented.
Mark my fucking words.
Dual stack is not a transition plan.
What you describe is "niche", not gradual. Gradual would be a scheme whereby usage grows steadily and significantly. With what you describe, traffic grows very little, for a very limited set of applications (torrents and your port 22 traffic).
But more importantly, it means that there's no reason to move to IPv6 if you have addresses. And those who don't are fucked because they can't do jack shit with their shiny new IPv6 addresses. Well, jack shit except warez and trying to hax0rize your boxen.
TV is centralized. The internet is not.
It's a "solution" that requires that, at some point in the future, everyone will jump to IPv6 at the same time. It's not a gradual transition.
What would be a gradual transition would be a solution whereby some people can actually start using IPv6 right away and others move little by little.
I have dual stack at home, natively. For all intents and purposes, IPv6 is useless to me. As a result, support is worse. If it goes down, I don't really notice it, and my ISP doesn't give much of a fuck ("err, use IPv4").
Furthermore, as long as not everybody has dual stack, everybody suffers from IPv4 address exhaustion. In other words, the dual stack "solution" means that we have to use IPv4 until every single host (or at least every host we need to talk to) has implemented IPv6. In reality, it's clear that 20 years in the future there will still be idiots still running IPv4, because they can't be fucked to migrate. When I see how networking is broken in many enterprises, I don't see how they'll ever migrate to IPv6. I could tell you about all the brokenness I've witnessed, even in companies that are supposed to be somewhat technically oriented, and it's fucking scary.
Forget dual stack. And don't call it a "solution," it's not just ridiculous, it's delusional.
Yeah that's actually what I meant. The scenario I see happening with NAT64 in place is that residential and mobile hosts get IPv6 addresses first, and are able to connect to enterprise-y legacy IPv4 services. Such services have no real need to connect back to residential subscribers usually, and if they do they just have to implement IPv6. Seeing how most enterprise networks are run (poorly), this is the most likely scenario. But until recently this was simply impossible to implement.
It'd be awesome if it was possible to shut those routers down, but it's never going to happen. Consider: there's still plenty of sites (even major websites, CNN until last year for example) that are incompatible with ECN (explicit congestion notification), despite the fact that it's almost 10 years old, and that it is theoretically backward-compatible.
If people can't get fucked to implement IPv4 properly, I have little hope that they'll switch to IPv6 swiftly. The only sensible scenario is one where people migrate little by little, and interop is possible during that time.
From the beginning of IPv6, something was missing: the possibility for IPv4 only hosts to reach IPv6 only hosts. The solution is a form of nat, called NAT64, but a few months ago it was just a vague proposal AFAIK. As long as this is not solved, the transition to IPv6 *cannot* work. There is a simple reason: the planned transition involves ALL hosts talking both IPv4 and IPv6. When you speak both, inevitably the least used IPv6 is not supported well, and people end up using only IPv4.
It's so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.
Even if you could recoup some of these addresses, this would only afford a few months of use, so it's not going to be worth the effort.
The NuLabour is not "leftist" by any means. Old Labour was. Old Labour is no more.
Law & order bullshit is right wing. It's the shit peddled by the likes of Sarkozy and Berlusconi that gets such morons elected (by retired assholes).
Stolen from the comments in the Independent: Why do British police go about in threes? One can read, one can write, the other keeps an eye on the 2 dangerous subversive intellectuals.
Seems appropriate. Although I would say that French police aren't any better, they just go about in pairs.