No offense, but security is completely orthogonal to the issue of using NAT vs. publicly-routable addresses. You can still have a firewall even if you're using non-private IP's; but with NAT, you have no choice about whether to open up some internal resources, unless you decide to do port forwarding, which is very ugly and a maintenance nightmare.
Bottom line: please don't muddy the issue by bringing security into the discussion, because the utility/necessity of IPv6 has nothing to do with security.
Besides, if it makes you feel better, you can continue using NAT with IPv6. I'd rather not.
And I do want "caller pays" and can't get it here in the US. You argue that "One-size-fits-all SUCKS", and yes, it does. But in Europe, as many other posters have mentioned, you have a choice.
Agreed. You should have the option. But if it's so great and has huge demand behind it, why hasn't some company come up with it yet? Surely the 1-900 infrastructure can be modified to achieve this goal.
"Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too!
I don't want "caller pays." I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.
Besides which, if receiving calls costing a lot is really a problem, make the first 30 seconds free, so the receiver has the right to hang up if he doesn't want to pay for the call. Me, I don't care: I have 300 minutes/month during the day, and 3000 minutes/month nights and weekends, neither of which I even come close to using up.
Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.
In this case, the proper calculus is not limited to, "Which system or combination of systems produces the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people?" There are lots of other considerations as well, including, "Is it fair to confiscate someone's income to benefit someone else?" and "Is it right to command decisions that can be left to individual choice?"
This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.
Besides, not a single person has yet demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proliferation of wireless technologies has at all been responsible for the lower per capita wireless use in the US.
(Furthermore, in this particular case, CDMA---the best, and most clever, mobile technology---never would never have appeared if the US had the same needless restrictions on wireless systems that Europe does.)
Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons": there is a large coalition of forces who believe in the superiority of the free market to command economies. I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well. The US's biggest problem may be that it doesn't rely on the free market more often.
When gasoline becomes more scarce, its price will naturally climb in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Until then, gasoline is a much cheaper source of *portable* energy than anything else, at least when you take startup cost into account. (If someone fronted all the cost for R&D of a personal hydrogen transportation system, then fuel cells might be cheaper in the margin; but I'd rather that be funded privately instead of having the funds ripped from my wallet by Uncle Sam.)
One can easily make the argument that using diesel/gasoline/NG for electricity generation is stupid, but it is still economically most viable: nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants, and wind power are all more expensive per unit of generated power than fossil fuel-powered plants when you consider plant depreciation/total cost and the uninformed NIMBY reaction unique to nuclear plants. So, while it would be nice to save the fossil fuels for cars and use nuclear power for electricity generation, that isn't going to happen unless gasoline gets a lot more expensive.
And getting government to do your (that means YOU, earth-before-humans wackos) dirty work by raising taxes on gasoline to artificially incent the development of alternative energy sources is an abuse of government power and is abhorrent to anyone who believes in personal liberty.
(Oh, and look at how well that's worked out for Europe. Those fuel cell cars are just rolling off the lots over there! I am LOL right now. I hope you guys like your stagnant economies.)
The reason gasoline is so expensive in Europe is, quite simply, *tax*. There's no other reason for a commodity purchased on the open market to be so much more expensive in Europe than in the US, especially since Europe is much closer to an abundant source (the middle east) than the US.
Inevitably, they saved the best for last. I cannot wait to replace my Japansese-language with Chinese-subtitles VCD version with and English-subtitled DVD version.
Well, I'm an American, and I like subbed Japanese movies. However, even if I didn't, I don't understand how that would make me racist: perhaps some people simply prefer hearing the dialogue (however interpreted) rather than reading it.
FWIW, I don't read Plato in Greek or Virgil in Latin, so I perfectly understand the desire not to hear the dialogue in Japanese, even in the presence of subtitles.
Good lord, do I need to spell out everything in perfect detail? I was one of the people who bought a DVD player and then found out about this Divx shit, and didn't want my investment made worthless by CC's money grab.
No one who had Divx vs. DVD explained in detail to them would buy a Divx player. This is precisely why it failed.:)
"Consumer friendly"? When did I say that? When did I even imply that?
Besides, what you describe are isolated incidents, probably due to individual overzealous store managers. Who cares. The Divx situation was a lot worse: the Circuit City main office attempting to shove premeditated, primitive, and inconvenient DRM down all our throats through a deceptive advertising campaign and at the expense of whatever good will there was in the DVD consortium.
Yeah, all companies do some bad things along with some good things. You have to pick and choose your battles, and that was an important one, IMO.
Or kill them, and no company will ever think of crossing its customers like that.
As as result of the Divx debacle from over 5 years ago, I still won't shop at Circuit Shitty. And I suspect I'm not the only one. I have to imagine that this has had some impact on the rise of Best Buy in the northeast.
That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Assuming 6th graders can't handle something is a self-fulfilling prophecy: no expectations quite logically leads to no results.
Instead of computers for each student, why not let them use classroom computers when they're actually needed (for simluations in physics class, or plotting in math, or whatever) and instead hand out books to stimulate their minds and actually teach them something?
Perhaps they can start with some easy-to-digest classics of the Western canon, like Aeschylus, Swift, Twain, Shakespeare, etc., and then move on to the more difficult philosophical works of Donne, Rosseau, Locke, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc.
Most of this stuff I didn't get to read in high school because the standards were too low even in AP classes, and that's just too bad. Perhaps with fewer computers and less bullshit, and more books, better teachers, and school choice, students would actually come out of 12th grade knowing something and not requiring remedial education for their first year in college.
See, I don't know why they don't do this already. Encryption is incredibly cheap compared to the bandwidth of a typical user (100Mbps for Rijndael on a typical computer vs about 8Mbps for a fast college dorm connection to the general internet), with a relatively very small startup cost in terms of negotiation/modular exponentiation since the files are so large.
I think it's a waste that any communication short of non-persistent HTTP connections for public, non-incriminating data (e.g., images) is done without encryption. Encryption doesn't solve all problems---e.g., it can't solve the problem of the RIAA becoming one of your "peers" and downloading the latest Britney track---but it does solve the problem of snooping on others' connections.
What I really want is a heads-up display, but not some big, bulky goggle crap; I want something like a small light transmitter on the frame of my glasses that projects an image straight into my eyeball. Something small, light, and which allows me to overlay the display over my normal vision without having to preprocess and delay my normal vision.
This kind of interface is a prerequisite IMO for me wearing any kind of computer.
Well, to conclude my own half of the conversation, I'll just say that you should read Atlas Shrugged to see that there's another side to rebellion. It's not only the lazy who can mount a revolution, and more importantly, we the producers don't need them.
Your political system depends on a complete change to human nature.
You've got it completely backware. Libertarianism recognizes that humans are inherently lazy and selfish, and refuses to reward them for it. It is socialism and its relatives (social safety nets, central planning, etc.) that cannot square themselves with human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but security is completely orthogonal to the issue of using NAT vs. publicly-routable addresses. You can still have a firewall even if you're using non-private IP's; but with NAT, you have no choice about whether to open up some internal resources, unless you decide to do port forwarding, which is very ugly and a maintenance nightmare.
Bottom line: please don't muddy the issue by bringing security into the discussion, because the utility/necessity of IPv6 has nothing to do with security.
Besides, if it makes you feel better, you can continue using NAT with IPv6. I'd rather not.
Agreed. You should have the option. But if it's so great and has huge demand behind it, why hasn't some company come up with it yet? Surely the 1-900 infrastructure can be modified to achieve this goal.
I don't want "caller pays." I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.
Besides which, if receiving calls costing a lot is really a problem, make the first 30 seconds free, so the receiver has the right to hang up if he doesn't want to pay for the call. Me, I don't care: I have 300 minutes/month during the day, and 3000 minutes/month nights and weekends, neither of which I even come close to using up.
One-size-fits-all SUCKS.
...the flaw in this analogy?
Driving on your own side of the road = clear and present danger to life.
Using different wireless technologies on different bands = no such danger.
Come on, you (the moderators) can do better than this.
Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.
In this case, the proper calculus is not limited to, "Which system or combination of systems produces the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people?" There are lots of other considerations as well, including, "Is it fair to confiscate someone's income to benefit someone else?" and "Is it right to command decisions that can be left to individual choice?"
This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.
Besides, not a single person has yet demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proliferation of wireless technologies has at all been responsible for the lower per capita wireless use in the US.
(Furthermore, in this particular case, CDMA---the best, and most clever, mobile technology---never would never have appeared if the US had the same needless restrictions on wireless systems that Europe does.)
Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons": there is a large coalition of forces who believe in the superiority of the free market to command economies. I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well. The US's biggest problem may be that it doesn't rely on the free market more often.
When gasoline becomes more scarce, its price will naturally climb in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Until then, gasoline is a much cheaper source of *portable* energy than anything else, at least when you take startup cost into account. (If someone fronted all the cost for R&D of a personal hydrogen transportation system, then fuel cells might be cheaper in the margin; but I'd rather that be funded privately instead of having the funds ripped from my wallet by Uncle Sam.)
One can easily make the argument that using diesel/gasoline/NG for electricity generation is stupid, but it is still economically most viable: nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants, and wind power are all more expensive per unit of generated power than fossil fuel-powered plants when you consider plant depreciation/total cost and the uninformed NIMBY reaction unique to nuclear plants. So, while it would be nice to save the fossil fuels for cars and use nuclear power for electricity generation, that isn't going to happen unless gasoline gets a lot more expensive.
And getting government to do your (that means YOU, earth-before-humans wackos) dirty work by raising taxes on gasoline to artificially incent the development of alternative energy sources is an abuse of government power and is abhorrent to anyone who believes in personal liberty.
(Oh, and look at how well that's worked out for Europe. Those fuel cell cars are just rolling off the lots over there! I am LOL right now. I hope you guys like your stagnant economies.)
The reason gasoline is so expensive in Europe is, quite simply, *tax*. There's no other reason for a commodity purchased on the open market to be so much more expensive in Europe than in the US, especially since Europe is much closer to an abundant source (the middle east) than the US.
As if a national ID card would be free.
Even if there were no explicit fee, you'd pay for it 200x over with your taxes.
Inevitably, they saved the best for last. I cannot wait to replace my Japansese-language with Chinese-subtitles VCD version with and English-subtitled DVD version.
Well, I'm an American, and I like subbed Japanese movies. However, even if I didn't, I don't understand how that would make me racist: perhaps some people simply prefer hearing the dialogue (however interpreted) rather than reading it.
FWIW, I don't read Plato in Greek or Virgil in Latin, so I perfectly understand the desire not to hear the dialogue in Japanese, even in the presence of subtitles.
No, I'm not pissed off. I'm just willing to remove CC from my shopping options because it's the principled thing to do.
that never even came close to accomplishing the thing you feared the most?
Thanks in large part to the efforts of people like me, which of course destroys your argument.
Good lord, do I need to spell out everything in perfect detail? I was one of the people who bought a DVD player and then found out about this Divx shit, and didn't want my investment made worthless by CC's money grab.
:)
No one who had Divx vs. DVD explained in detail to them would buy a Divx player. This is precisely why it failed.
No, I didn't, dumbass. I think you want to try an alternate reading.
"Consumer friendly"? When did I say that? When did I even imply that?
Besides, what you describe are isolated incidents, probably due to individual overzealous store managers. Who cares. The Divx situation was a lot worse: the Circuit City main office attempting to shove premeditated, primitive, and inconvenient DRM down all our throats through a deceptive advertising campaign and at the expense of whatever good will there was in the DVD consortium.
Yeah, all companies do some bad things along with some good things. You have to pick and choose your battles, and that was an important one, IMO.
Or kill them, and no company will ever think of crossing its customers like that.
As as result of the Divx debacle from over 5 years ago, I still won't shop at Circuit Shitty. And I suspect I'm not the only one. I have to imagine that this has had some impact on the rise of Best Buy in the northeast.
That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Assuming 6th graders can't handle something is a self-fulfilling prophecy: no expectations quite logically leads to no results.
Instead of computers for each student, why not let them use classroom computers when they're actually needed (for simluations in physics class, or plotting in math, or whatever) and instead hand out books to stimulate their minds and actually teach them something?
Perhaps they can start with some easy-to-digest classics of the Western canon, like Aeschylus, Swift, Twain, Shakespeare, etc., and then move on to the more difficult philosophical works of Donne, Rosseau, Locke, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc.
Most of this stuff I didn't get to read in high school because the standards were too low even in AP classes, and that's just too bad. Perhaps with fewer computers and less bullshit, and more books, better teachers, and school choice, students would actually come out of 12th grade knowing something and not requiring remedial education for their first year in college.
...since when has Orrin Hatch been anything but extremist in *any* of his views?
Lemme guess: you didn't think the late Paul Wellstone or (the hopefully soon-to-be-late) Ted Kennedy is an extremist?
See, I don't know why they don't do this already. Encryption is incredibly cheap compared to the bandwidth of a typical user (100Mbps for Rijndael on a typical computer vs about 8Mbps for a fast college dorm connection to the general internet), with a relatively very small startup cost in terms of negotiation/modular exponentiation since the files are so large.
I think it's a waste that any communication short of non-persistent HTTP connections for public, non-incriminating data (e.g., images) is done without encryption. Encryption doesn't solve all problems---e.g., it can't solve the problem of the RIAA becoming one of your "peers" and downloading the latest Britney track---but it does solve the problem of snooping on others' connections.
What I really want is a heads-up display, but not some big, bulky goggle crap; I want something like a small light transmitter on the frame of my glasses that projects an image straight into my eyeball. Something small, light, and which allows me to overlay the display over my normal vision without having to preprocess and delay my normal vision.
This kind of interface is a prerequisite IMO for me wearing any kind of computer.
Well, to conclude my own half of the conversation, I'll just say that you should read Atlas Shrugged to see that there's another side to rebellion. It's not only the lazy who can mount a revolution, and more importantly, we the producers don't need them.
Your political system depends on a complete change to human nature.
You've got it completely backware. Libertarianism recognizes that humans are inherently lazy and selfish, and refuses to reward them for it. It is socialism and its relatives (social safety nets, central planning, etc.) that cannot square themselves with human nature.
Electricity didn't exist as a controllable power source until the 1900's, and yet it seems pretty viable.
Your objection is "proof by example," which is engineer-speak for "poor logic."
If you really want control over your money, go live in a virtual anarchy like Afghanistan and see if you'd rather be paying those taxes again.
Bad analogy, and you know it: only if you could come up with a secular nation with privately-owned infrastructure would you have a fair comparison.