So IPv6 has functional replacements for most of the advantages of NAT, but those functional replacements generate significantly more admin work to implement. For example pseudo-random IP's + local-only addresses to replace NAT's topology-hiding? Gimme a frikkin break. With IPv4+NAT I assign 1 address per machine that's in local DNS/hosts files, is routable across the NAT'd subnet/private network and is fully memorable on smaller networks or any network with standard subnet numbering (.1 is always router,.2 always DNS or some such system). And I can easily track which machines are hitting the internet. With IPv6 I need to assign one ULA IP and then the machine generates its own pseudo-random IP for external access. Neither are human-readable. And tracking internet usage is far more complex since the pseudo-random IP obscures the info from me (a PITA when trying to track down exactly which idiot salesman's laptop is spewing spam out of the network, that's otherwise trivial with a good firewall).
And when working behind a proper firewall running 1:1 NAT I'm now losing one of the main benefits of direct IP-private IP mapping, IE I can bring up a replacement server, get it fully running & tested and then swap it into production with a single, instant change on the firewall to switch it up (and a single-line config change to revert) and I'm back to swapping IP's on multiple machines to do this (and this is one of the two main reasons to use NAT in a data centre application, the other being to hide support servers from the outside, which is less of an issue with IPv6 to be sure).
So yes, IPv6 has solutions. But they're significantly more labour-intensive than under IPv4.
No, the bulk of changes are in network engineering. Lots of man-hours but low hardware costs. The biggest stumbling block is probably the DHCP issue, two mostly-incompatible specs for IPv6 and neither works as well as plain old IPv4 DHCP. But those issues won't be visible to consumers (large-scale DHCP issues are going to be a big stumbling block for IPv6 uptake in large multi-site organizations, not residential providers who will likely just use IP Autoconfig instead). The other issue is that the lack of IP portability is going to cause some serious re-engineering requirements for multi-nationals (but ISP's are going to LOVE it, it's government-issue spec-level vendor lockin via IP allocation).
No, it's a minimum of 10's of thousands of man-hours of deployment and probably collectively north of a few hundred million in deployment costs (mostly in terms of man-hours of engineering). The hardware isn't a significant cost centre here since it mostly already has support, as does firmware.
While IPv6 rollouts are merely an annoyance for small/medium businesses or providers it's a massive project at massive cost for the big providers and also for any organization with more than a few sites. By and large for any multi-site non-provider organization their internal networks need to be re-engineered entirely. They'll need to redesign their network (it's not just flip a switch, update some DNS records and change a few IP's) and with the changes to DHCP and the functional elimination of NAT support the redesigns become complex. Plus they likely have legacy hardware without IPv6 support running in various non-core uses which will need to get replaced (you'd be surprised how much old hardware soldiers on running internal stub networks or as local servers for support or admin groups, there's a lot of this in large organizations as it's often easier to just deploy retired hardware than to write a business case to get your regional support centre a shell server or similar).
And frankly, IPv6 has architectural issues, especially with regards to IP allocation and DHCP. It's core design is at odds with standard practices today (NAT and portable IP space being the big stumbling blocks) and there's going to be a fair amount of speedbumps in rolling it out globally as large multi-site organizations run into issues, especially with their original IP allocation. IPv6 isn't broken by any means but it does change the rules in ways which will cause deployment problems. There's good reasons why the large providers have been avoiding deploying it for as long as possible and they come down to a lot more than just cost.
As Goonswarm proved, reaching high-end PvP in EVE takes about 3 weeks if you're organized (or join someone who is). There's little you can't do with a swarm of T1 frigs, a willingness to get yourself killed and the ability to be a real dick.
Turn off the Theme service and Vista Home Premium runs fine on a Netbook with 1GB of RAM, as my Fujitsu U810 proves. It's not terribly speedy, but quite usable unless you're in power-saver mode.
All that UI gloss just makes things slow.
One should note that the most successful eBook vendor, Baen Books, uses absolutely no DRM, and the most successful online music vendor, Apple, goes out of it's way to provide an easy method of circumventing the DRM (It's 4 clicks).
Bandwidth is not a monopoly. Local Loops are, bandwidth is not. The issue is backbone bandwidth, not local loop capacity (Ignoring the entire issue that Verizon Business's backbone is seperate from Verizon's regional network at this point).
If Verizon's backhaul performance drops, the Tier 2 providers which aggregate much of that traffic will switch their primary peering links to prefer another backbone. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Not to mention the fact that Verizon has two backbones. One is their regional backbone in the Northeast, which will deliver this service, and the other is the Verizon Business (ex-UUNET/MCI/WorldCom) backbone that's worldwide. The latter is not likely to carry this traffic initially because it's a service that Verizon will be offering to end users, which is a market they don't pursue globally. The AS701, 702 and 703 backbones are used for a different market (Business access). One needs to seperate Verizon the regional Telco provider from Verizon the national wireless provider and Verizon Business the international backbone provider, the business units and much of the infrastructure is seperate.
I do mail abuse. The vast majority of our phishing complaints involve free hosting providers, not compromised cable/dsl boxes (Which are however, the overwhelming osurce of the emails).
NT4 ran on PPC, up until SP3 (the last install discs with PPC support were SP3 based).
Nobody switched, and that was in the days of the gratuitously unstable System 7.5 and Mac OS 7.6, which tended to crash if you looked at them wrong.
I suspect that BeOS has more users than NT for PPC, at least for Macs. And neither OS ran on G3's or later CPU's.
Now, with OS X and VPC, why the hell would I want to run Windows of all things on a Mac? other way 'round I can see, especially with WINE support or something similar (like Mac-on-Linux) to get Windows software compatibility. But even then, I'd probably stick to PPC, as the hardware is generally better quality and definitely better designed.
Nikon beat them on WiFi (D2h had 802.11b in January,.11g was announced for the D2x and D2h two weeks early).
Kodak beat them to 35mm equivalent resolution (14MP DCS 14 2 years ago) and Contax had full-frame sensors several years ago.
And Nikon's 12MP D2x was announced before the 1Ds Mk II, for significantly less money (Notable in that the Nikon boasts significantly superior AF and Metering, with the Multi-CAM2000 AF unit and Nikon's exclusive 1,005 sensor 3D Colour meter)as well as using the more mature CCD technology. Canon wins on Image Stabilization, sheer resolution and stupid pricing.
Advice: Jim doesn't print Literature, he prints good stories.
Also, a multi-volume series is not likely to get published as a first work unless the first book works well as a standalone work. too much risk for the publisher.
But if you've got a rippin' good read, Baen is the most successful publisher of new authors in SF&F (And generally in fiction).
Sawyer is a guy who wrote some really interesting stuff a decade ago before descending into Utopian Navel Gazing.
I've read a couple of his more recent works, and they weren't much to write home about. Mostly a vaguely interesting premise ruined by prosletizing and philosphical wanking.
If I want that, I'll go read Ken Macleod, at least he's entertaining when he does it.
No need to port it. X-Scale is pretty much a StrongArm, which is the 2000/2100's processor. Wifi's already there, as is Bluetooth. USB would need to be added.
IIRC it was the USS Lexington in 1930, providing power to part of Washington State.
The (original) Lexington & Saratoga used a primitive version of the IPS propulsion system proposed for the DDX Next-generation Destroyer that the Navy's working on. Basically a Turbine/Electric Drivetrain.
Current Carriers simply do not have the power output for this, as they use direct-drive powertrains rather than Turbine/Electric. Nuke plants are a Steam Source, not an Electricity source (Unless they're MHD and that's still a a pipe dream). The next series of carriers will likely use IPS, as the next-generation EM Catapults will need a larger power output than the current setup can provide.
As an Aside, Diesel/Electric Locomotives have been unes in this capacity quite often. During the Ice Storm in Quebec a few years ago, CN even intentionally derailed one and drove it down main street in a small town to provide power.
Slashdot Mirror
So IPv6 has functional replacements for most of the advantages of NAT, but those functional replacements generate significantly more admin work to implement. For example pseudo-random IP's + local-only addresses to replace NAT's topology-hiding? Gimme a frikkin break. With IPv4+NAT I assign 1 address per machine that's in local DNS/hosts files, is routable across the NAT'd subnet/private network and is fully memorable on smaller networks or any network with standard subnet numbering (.1 is always router, .2 always DNS or some such system). And I can easily track which machines are hitting the internet. With IPv6 I need to assign one ULA IP and then the machine generates its own pseudo-random IP for external access. Neither are human-readable. And tracking internet usage is far more complex since the pseudo-random IP obscures the info from me (a PITA when trying to track down exactly which idiot salesman's laptop is spewing spam out of the network, that's otherwise trivial with a good firewall).
And when working behind a proper firewall running 1:1 NAT I'm now losing one of the main benefits of direct IP-private IP mapping, IE I can bring up a replacement server, get it fully running & tested and then swap it into production with a single, instant change on the firewall to switch it up (and a single-line config change to revert) and I'm back to swapping IP's on multiple machines to do this (and this is one of the two main reasons to use NAT in a data centre application, the other being to hide support servers from the outside, which is less of an issue with IPv6 to be sure).
So yes, IPv6 has solutions. But they're significantly more labour-intensive than under IPv4.
No, the bulk of changes are in network engineering. Lots of man-hours but low hardware costs. The biggest stumbling block is probably the DHCP issue, two mostly-incompatible specs for IPv6 and neither works as well as plain old IPv4 DHCP. But those issues won't be visible to consumers (large-scale DHCP issues are going to be a big stumbling block for IPv6 uptake in large multi-site organizations, not residential providers who will likely just use IP Autoconfig instead). The other issue is that the lack of IP portability is going to cause some serious re-engineering requirements for multi-nationals (but ISP's are going to LOVE it, it's government-issue spec-level vendor lockin via IP allocation).
Compaq gave up DEC's /8. HP gave up Compaq's. HP only has a single /8 rather than the 3 it could possibly have ended up with.
No, it's a minimum of 10's of thousands of man-hours of deployment and probably collectively north of a few hundred million in deployment costs (mostly in terms of man-hours of engineering). The hardware isn't a significant cost centre here since it mostly already has support, as does firmware. While IPv6 rollouts are merely an annoyance for small/medium businesses or providers it's a massive project at massive cost for the big providers and also for any organization with more than a few sites. By and large for any multi-site non-provider organization their internal networks need to be re-engineered entirely. They'll need to redesign their network (it's not just flip a switch, update some DNS records and change a few IP's) and with the changes to DHCP and the functional elimination of NAT support the redesigns become complex. Plus they likely have legacy hardware without IPv6 support running in various non-core uses which will need to get replaced (you'd be surprised how much old hardware soldiers on running internal stub networks or as local servers for support or admin groups, there's a lot of this in large organizations as it's often easier to just deploy retired hardware than to write a business case to get your regional support centre a shell server or similar). And frankly, IPv6 has architectural issues, especially with regards to IP allocation and DHCP. It's core design is at odds with standard practices today (NAT and portable IP space being the big stumbling blocks) and there's going to be a fair amount of speedbumps in rolling it out globally as large multi-site organizations run into issues, especially with their original IP allocation. IPv6 isn't broken by any means but it does change the rules in ways which will cause deployment problems. There's good reasons why the large providers have been avoiding deploying it for as long as possible and they come down to a lot more than just cost.
Engineers are actually pretty damned social. But there's no beer on Twitter.
As Goonswarm proved, reaching high-end PvP in EVE takes about 3 weeks if you're organized (or join someone who is). There's little you can't do with a swarm of T1 frigs, a willingness to get yourself killed and the ability to be a real dick.
Turn off the Theme service and Vista Home Premium runs fine on a Netbook with 1GB of RAM, as my Fujitsu U810 proves. It's not terribly speedy, but quite usable unless you're in power-saver mode. All that UI gloss just makes things slow.
One should note that the most successful eBook vendor, Baen Books, uses absolutely no DRM, and the most successful online music vendor, Apple, goes out of it's way to provide an easy method of circumventing the DRM (It's 4 clicks).
DRM doesn't sell well in the marketplace.
Incorrect. Without Keys you can't use their changes ON THEIR PLATFORM. Nothing is stopping you from using those changes on a different platform.
Bandwidth is not a monopoly. Local Loops are, bandwidth is not. The issue is backbone bandwidth, not local loop capacity (Ignoring the entire issue that Verizon Business's backbone is seperate from Verizon's regional network at this point).
If Verizon's backhaul performance drops, the Tier 2 providers which aggregate much of that traffic will switch their primary peering links to prefer another backbone. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Not to mention the fact that Verizon has two backbones. One is their regional backbone in the Northeast, which will deliver this service, and the other is the Verizon Business (ex-UUNET/MCI/WorldCom) backbone that's worldwide. The latter is not likely to carry this traffic initially because it's a service that Verizon will be offering to end users, which is a market they don't pursue globally. The AS701, 702 and 703 backbones are used for a different market (Business access). One needs to seperate Verizon the regional Telco provider from Verizon the national wireless provider and Verizon Business the international backbone provider, the business units and much of the infrastructure is seperate.
The guy owns Acme.com, which is only one of the most popular 'test' domains for documentation.
It's not unbelievable.
Too bad the thing is toasty now.
It's generally $20 to cover shipping costs. Some Mac dealers will get stock specifically for these upgrades, so you can get it for free occasionally.
Educational Models of the G3 white iBook exist without DVD drives, as well as normal versions of the 500MHz and 600MHz.
The other recent no-DVD machines were the 1st and second rev base-model eMac. 3rd rev machines come with the Combo as standard.
I do mail abuse. The vast majority of our phishing complaints involve free hosting providers, not compromised cable/dsl boxes (Which are however, the overwhelming osurce of the emails).
NT4 ran on PPC, up until SP3 (the last install discs with PPC support were SP3 based).
Nobody switched, and that was in the days of the gratuitously unstable System 7.5 and Mac OS 7.6, which tended to crash if you looked at them wrong.
I suspect that BeOS has more users than NT for PPC, at least for Macs. And neither OS ran on G3's or later CPU's.
Now, with OS X and VPC, why the hell would I want to run Windows of all things on a Mac? other way 'round I can see, especially with WINE support or something similar (like Mac-on-Linux) to get Windows software compatibility. But even then, I'd probably stick to PPC, as the hardware is generally better quality and definitely better designed.
Nikon beat them on WiFi (D2h had 802.11b in January, .11g was announced for the D2x and D2h two weeks early).
Kodak beat them to 35mm equivalent resolution (14MP DCS 14 2 years ago) and Contax had full-frame sensors several years ago.
And Nikon's 12MP D2x was announced before the 1Ds Mk II, for significantly less money (Notable in that the Nikon boasts significantly superior AF and Metering, with the Multi-CAM2000 AF unit and Nikon's exclusive 1,005 sensor 3D Colour meter)as well as using the more mature CCD technology. Canon wins on Image Stabilization, sheer resolution and stupid pricing.
Join Baen's Bar, test it out in the slushpile.
Advice: Jim doesn't print Literature, he prints good stories.
Also, a multi-volume series is not likely to get published as a first work unless the first book works well as a standalone work. too much risk for the publisher.
But if you've got a rippin' good read, Baen is the most successful publisher of new authors in SF&F (And generally in fiction).
Sync contacts with your Cell Phone.
Pretentious fuck, ain't he.
SF Writer's jobs are to ell interesting stories, which happen to feature futuristic settings and/or other speculation.
Not to predict the future.
Sawyer is a guy who wrote some really interesting stuff a decade ago before descending into Utopian Navel Gazing.
I've read a couple of his more recent works, and they weren't much to write home about. Mostly a vaguely interesting premise ruined by prosletizing and philosphical wanking.
If I want that, I'll go read Ken Macleod, at least he's entertaining when he does it.
Canada, and the upper plains, not to mention the Pacific Northwest.
Most of the US is NOT water-poor. Canada is bloody well flooded.
No need to port it. X-Scale is pretty much a StrongArm, which is the 2000/2100's processor.
Wifi's already there, as is Bluetooth. USB would need to be added.
It's happened.
Except it wasn't a Nuke.
IIRC it was the USS Lexington in 1930, providing power to part of Washington State.
The (original) Lexington & Saratoga used a primitive version of the IPS propulsion system proposed for the DDX Next-generation Destroyer that the Navy's working on. Basically a Turbine/Electric Drivetrain.
Current Carriers simply do not have the power output for this, as they use direct-drive powertrains rather than Turbine/Electric. Nuke plants are a Steam Source, not an Electricity source (Unless they're MHD and that's still a a pipe dream). The next series of carriers will likely use IPS, as the next-generation EM Catapults will need a larger power output than the current setup can provide.
As an Aside, Diesel/Electric Locomotives have been unes in this capacity quite often. During the Ice Storm in Quebec a few years ago, CN even intentionally derailed one and drove it down main street in a small town to provide power.