First benefit that comes to mind is no need to dick around with nat and that vpn.
What are you going to do about security, then? As you may have noticed, if you don't properly 'dick around' with NAT and VPN, most of the stuff won't get through. NAT defaults to 'inbound = no', due to lack of knowing where to put the traffic. What say you of IPv6? Are we really, honestly going to rely on the WINDOWS FIREWALL to prevent intrusion in that world?
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes.
I see. And are those the majority of carriers, or just the early adopters? And, assuming the latter, is it at all possible that the prefixes are there to incentivize you to make the switch (and thereby help them test it)?
Well, considering that Windows 7 (and Server 2008) boxes have this nasty, nasty habit of turning IPv6 back on without your knowledge or consent, I'd say that might be a low estimate. I don't have 6 anywhere, so I disable the protocol. No need for the latency hit, etc. Yet it 'magically' turns itself back on on a fairly regular basis. Desktops and servers. It's disconcerting.
Anyway, all of my modern Windows boxes have a solid chance of believing that their 6 stack is working, when it decidedly is not.
Of course this will break protocols that try clever tricks for NAT traversal (though many NATs do that anyway).
Further I'd add that if you're a carrier you likely WANT those broken anyway. If bittorrent were to fail to be compatible with an IPv6-NATed-to-IPv4 deployment, do you suppose Comcast (for example) would cry themselves to sleep over it?
The vast majority of the internet's last-mile infrastructure assumes that you are a CONSUMER of content. So long as you can do that, you'll probably pay your bill. And so long as you're paying your bill, why on God's Green Earth would your ISP spend any money to the contrary?
It has a bigger address space. Yup you nailed it. That's the big difference. That means networks stop being so tiered and problematic and each device you own can have a number of unique addresses, enabling a whole range of new technology cheaply and affordably. You don't want new networking technologies and such? Well that's just fine, but you'll have to excuse the rest of us when we ignore your complaints.
Educate me. How is IPv6 the same thing as Net Neutrality? How does IPv6 actually REQUIRE that your ISP provide you with more than one address? My present ISP charges $5/month for IPs, IIRC. Assuming that I cannot successfully NAT v6 by the time they make the transition, imagine this conversation:
Me: Hi, Mr ISP Support Guy, I can only get one device to work on your network at a time.
ISP: That's correct. You're only paying for one address. Would you like to add multiple addresses to this account?
I already have seven separate things making connections via my IPv4 NAT device today, from my HOME network. Please do illustrate how this isn't going to increase my monthly bill by $30 a month when it rolls out...
Once you can convince me that the gatekeepers will necessarily collaborate with your idea of free multiple addresses, then we can discuss these new technologies. Until then, you're probably not going to be using them either. You'll have no one else to 'talk' to...
That gap is readily being fixed in other places, though. Gmail, for example, ties it to a real phone number. So while this may not be your actual name, it is still certainly identifiable to 'you' with little genuine effort. So you'd still want to adapt - if for no other reason than the day that Facebook changes this as well. (And if you've been on it lately, they're 'encouraging' you to supply a phone number already. It's a tiny, tiny thing to flip that over to 'requiring'.)
Your sequence of events is out of order. It has gone away in some small places of the net. This will spread.
RealID was/is a reflection of that, rather than the implementation of it.
Those 'privacy advocates' may have won that particular battle, but they're doomed to lose the war because they're simply not capable of adapting, they have no power, and there are many, many, many more that do not care one whit.
I'm suggesting people concerned by RealID educate themselves and take steps to minimize the impact of this oncoming change.
If you're willing to set up a free Google Apps domain, you could have this. Just go grab 'eyrieowl.net' or what have you from GoDaddy et al, and set one up. Set up one address and enable catchall. Then you can, without any configuration whatsoever input things like 'crapsite@eyrieowl.net' and have it land in your main box.
And if you didn't want to switch, you could have it forward to your main gmail account...
All at no recurring cost to you, other than the domain name.
See my other reply, but you're a dinosaur in terms of the emerging internet. Change is happening all around you, and you're failing to adapt.
As am I, to be sure, but still the point remains.
Further, how many WoW players actually COULD beat you up? Also, with identity attached, would it be easier or more difficult to get law enforcement to rectify such behavior?
If society is structured around identity, most of the gaps you're fretting about would go away. It's only when we're assumed to be concealed that we set ourselves up for exposure.
Know this: They are not alone. By 'tomorrow' the whole notion of anonymity online will be gone from any and all mainstream places. You'll still be able to create unique and disposable handles on some sites, but the vast majority will be tied to, say, your Facebook account, and will proudly display your real name.
I did not fail to comprehend what Blizzard was planning to do. You, on the other hand, have failed to realize the impact of the popularity of things like Facebook's API.
And I'd like to pre-stipulate that Facebook may or may not win out. It could well be some other service entirely that manages your identity online. That's not relevant. SOMETHING will unify you amongst any and all main stream media sources online. Count on it.
I hate to break this to you, but your real name is absolutely not a secret. Not even your SSN is a secret, if you think about what 'secret' means. Both of these are a matter of public record, and are absolutely trivial to discover about you by anyone and everyone with whom you trade data bits. If you think you have 'privacy' online, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
In short, if you're in public, expect to be in public. And it goes without saying that the internet is 'in public'.
I know this isn't a popular idea, but I just thought I'd chime in here because you've illustrated a decently bad example of your thesis. By way of saying that Blizzard is less of the company they used to be, you're simply illustrating that they are coming to grips with the realities of the online world. It isn't the wild west any more, and Blizzard is reflecting that. You're not, but that's scarcely their fault.
I'll sum up by offering that you could easily find better examples...
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
What a stupid thing to say. It would be just as accurate (and just as stupid) to state that, of the computers which recover from a virus, they all disinfect themselves.
How so? The former statement illustrates an observable, known feature of humanity. We heal. The latter statement is utterly false. Computers do not heal. Please do explain.
I understand your skepticism. Please, though, don't try and assuage the points without taking in the content. All you can possibly do is speculate, and since you're not necessarily some kind of expert in the matter, it isn't necessarily a productive use of our time.
Actually the base premise is factually infallible:
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
Or, if you'd rather:
A human body that will not heal cannot be helped by medicine of any sort.
One more try, perhaps:
Healing > Medicine
My final point would be that we could be researching HOW the placebo effect works in order to harness that power without using placebos. Getting the body to heal itself would be the ultimate goal, and I believe that the observables within placebo effects can lead us down that path.
Once those secrets are revealed, then not even cancer would be insurmountable, because again, exactly zero cancer patients who cannot heal have survived it. All of their bodies healed themselves. We need to figure out how to make that happen directly, and understanding the mind's impact on health would seem essential.
But it is stupid to say that all medicines are no more effective than placebos.
Yes, that would be stupid to say, but most strawman-paraphrases are, aren't they?
I'm saying simply that the pill clearly does nothing. The human does it. Getting the human to do it will continue to be the trick. So it may well be that giving them the actual pill is the best way to get them to do it today, as opposed to the placebo. BUT the fact that the placebo works AT ALL is strong evidence that we're going to find another way to achieve this same result. We'll be able to get the human to heal without the pill, because again, the pill isn't ultimately responsible when you can get a human to do it without any medicine at all.
It's nuanced, but I'm confident you could understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you're paraphrasing it to be - if you're willing to try.
I never said shamanism was crap, though. Without the power to induce the body to heal itself, then no, it clearly wouldn't work. But how it works becomes largely irrelevant in the face of the fact that it is the body itself doing all the work.
Of course, if you're going to attempt a stunt pulled from any number of Jason Statham movies, then at least watch one of them and go for somewhere that has gold, cash, or jewelry.
Ah, but if you had watched that movie, the ACTUAL job was for the photos. It could be the same case here. Maybe the employee files were the actual target? Hard to imagine, but I'd suggest that the stuff the store sells may not have been the actual target.
Slashdot Mirror
First benefit that comes to mind is no need to dick around with nat and that vpn.
What are you going to do about security, then? As you may have noticed, if you don't properly 'dick around' with NAT and VPN, most of the stuff won't get through. NAT defaults to 'inbound = no', due to lack of knowing where to put the traffic. What say you of IPv6? Are we really, honestly going to rely on the WINDOWS FIREWALL to prevent intrusion in that world?
Do tell...
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes.
I see. And are those the majority of carriers, or just the early adopters? And, assuming the latter, is it at all possible that the prefixes are there to incentivize you to make the switch (and thereby help them test it)?
Well, considering that Windows 7 (and Server 2008) boxes have this nasty, nasty habit of turning IPv6 back on without your knowledge or consent, I'd say that might be a low estimate. I don't have 6 anywhere, so I disable the protocol. No need for the latency hit, etc. Yet it 'magically' turns itself back on on a fairly regular basis. Desktops and servers. It's disconcerting.
Anyway, all of my modern Windows boxes have a solid chance of believing that their 6 stack is working, when it decidedly is not.
Of course this will break protocols that try clever tricks for NAT traversal (though many NATs do that anyway).
Further I'd add that if you're a carrier you likely WANT those broken anyway. If bittorrent were to fail to be compatible with an IPv6-NATed-to-IPv4 deployment, do you suppose Comcast (for example) would cry themselves to sleep over it?
The vast majority of the internet's last-mile infrastructure assumes that you are a CONSUMER of content. So long as you can do that, you'll probably pay your bill. And so long as you're paying your bill, why on God's Green Earth would your ISP spend any money to the contrary?
It has a bigger address space. Yup you nailed it. That's the big difference. That means networks stop being so tiered and problematic and each device you own can have a number of unique addresses, enabling a whole range of new technology cheaply and affordably. You don't want new networking technologies and such? Well that's just fine, but you'll have to excuse the rest of us when we ignore your complaints.
Educate me. How is IPv6 the same thing as Net Neutrality? How does IPv6 actually REQUIRE that your ISP provide you with more than one address? My present ISP charges $5/month for IPs, IIRC. Assuming that I cannot successfully NAT v6 by the time they make the transition, imagine this conversation:
Me: Hi, Mr ISP Support Guy, I can only get one device to work on your network at a time.
ISP: That's correct. You're only paying for one address. Would you like to add multiple addresses to this account?
I already have seven separate things making connections via my IPv4 NAT device today, from my HOME network. Please do illustrate how this isn't going to increase my monthly bill by $30 a month when it rolls out...
Once you can convince me that the gatekeepers will necessarily collaborate with your idea of free multiple addresses, then we can discuss these new technologies. Until then, you're probably not going to be using them either. You'll have no one else to 'talk' to...
That gap is readily being fixed in other places, though. Gmail, for example, ties it to a real phone number. So while this may not be your actual name, it is still certainly identifiable to 'you' with little genuine effort. So you'd still want to adapt - if for no other reason than the day that Facebook changes this as well. (And if you've been on it lately, they're 'encouraging' you to supply a phone number already. It's a tiny, tiny thing to flip that over to 'requiring'.)
Your sequence of events is out of order. It has gone away in some small places of the net. This will spread.
RealID was/is a reflection of that, rather than the implementation of it.
Those 'privacy advocates' may have won that particular battle, but they're doomed to lose the war because they're simply not capable of adapting, they have no power, and there are many, many, many more that do not care one whit.
I'm suggesting people concerned by RealID educate themselves and take steps to minimize the impact of this oncoming change.
If you're willing to set up a free Google Apps domain, you could have this. Just go grab 'eyrieowl.net' or what have you from GoDaddy et al, and set one up. Set up one address and enable catchall. Then you can, without any configuration whatsoever input things like 'crapsite@eyrieowl.net' and have it land in your main box.
And if you didn't want to switch, you could have it forward to your main gmail account...
All at no recurring cost to you, other than the domain name.
True. But this is going away, so you may as well deal with it in the near-term as opposed to getting hurt by the transition.
See my other reply, but you're a dinosaur in terms of the emerging internet. Change is happening all around you, and you're failing to adapt.
As am I, to be sure, but still the point remains.
Further, how many WoW players actually COULD beat you up? Also, with identity attached, would it be easier or more difficult to get law enforcement to rectify such behavior?
If society is structured around identity, most of the gaps you're fretting about would go away. It's only when we're assumed to be concealed that we set ourselves up for exposure.
Know this: They are not alone. By 'tomorrow' the whole notion of anonymity online will be gone from any and all mainstream places. You'll still be able to create unique and disposable handles on some sites, but the vast majority will be tied to, say, your Facebook account, and will proudly display your real name.
I did not fail to comprehend what Blizzard was planning to do. You, on the other hand, have failed to realize the impact of the popularity of things like Facebook's API.
And I'd like to pre-stipulate that Facebook may or may not win out. It could well be some other service entirely that manages your identity online. That's not relevant. SOMETHING will unify you amongst any and all main stream media sources online. Count on it.
I hate to break this to you, but your real name is absolutely not a secret. Not even your SSN is a secret, if you think about what 'secret' means. Both of these are a matter of public record, and are absolutely trivial to discover about you by anyone and everyone with whom you trade data bits. If you think you have 'privacy' online, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
In short, if you're in public, expect to be in public. And it goes without saying that the internet is 'in public'.
I know this isn't a popular idea, but I just thought I'd chime in here because you've illustrated a decently bad example of your thesis. By way of saying that Blizzard is less of the company they used to be, you're simply illustrating that they are coming to grips with the realities of the online world. It isn't the wild west any more, and Blizzard is reflecting that. You're not, but that's scarcely their fault.
I'll sum up by offering that you could easily find better examples...
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
What a stupid thing to say. It would be just as accurate (and just as stupid) to state that, of the computers which recover from a virus, they all disinfect themselves.
How so? The former statement illustrates an observable, known feature of humanity. We heal. The latter statement is utterly false. Computers do not heal. Please do explain.
I understand your skepticism. Please, though, don't try and assuage the points without taking in the content. All you can possibly do is speculate, and since you're not necessarily some kind of expert in the matter, it isn't necessarily a productive use of our time.
Actually the base premise is factually infallible:
Of the people that heal, they all heal themselves.
Or, if you'd rather:
A human body that will not heal cannot be helped by medicine of any sort.
One more try, perhaps:
Healing > Medicine
My final point would be that we could be researching HOW the placebo effect works in order to harness that power without using placebos. Getting the body to heal itself would be the ultimate goal, and I believe that the observables within placebo effects can lead us down that path.
Once those secrets are revealed, then not even cancer would be insurmountable, because again, exactly zero cancer patients who cannot heal have survived it. All of their bodies healed themselves. We need to figure out how to make that happen directly, and understanding the mind's impact on health would seem essential.
A specific example in the video has subjects getting more tense after taking muscle relaxers... Check it out when you get home.
But it is stupid to say that all medicines are no more effective than placebos.
Yes, that would be stupid to say, but most strawman-paraphrases are, aren't they?
I'm saying simply that the pill clearly does nothing. The human does it. Getting the human to do it will continue to be the trick. So it may well be that giving them the actual pill is the best way to get them to do it today, as opposed to the placebo. BUT the fact that the placebo works AT ALL is strong evidence that we're going to find another way to achieve this same result. We'll be able to get the human to heal without the pill, because again, the pill isn't ultimately responsible when you can get a human to do it without any medicine at all.
It's nuanced, but I'm confident you could understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you're paraphrasing it to be - if you're willing to try.
Yes, this too.
I predict that we're exiting a dark age of medicine.
I never said shamanism was crap, though. Without the power to induce the body to heal itself, then no, it clearly wouldn't work. But how it works becomes largely irrelevant in the face of the fact that it is the body itself doing all the work.
So you missed the result where four sugar pills is better at curing gastric ulcers than two?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsFTgirKXHk
Seems like we have contradictory observations.
So... Didn't watch the video, did you?
That thoughts create and manifest themselves in the physical world.
Modern medicine is just shamanism, then, isn't it? Different totems, but same result - the believers heal themselves.
Of course, if you're going to attempt a stunt pulled from any number of Jason Statham movies, then at least watch one of them and go for somewhere that has gold, cash, or jewelry.
Ah, but if you had watched that movie, the ACTUAL job was for the photos. It could be the same case here. Maybe the employee files were the actual target? Hard to imagine, but I'd suggest that the stuff the store sells may not have been the actual target.
Now quit arguing over pointless shit. You and spun both seem to love doing it. Christ, you're exactly like a couple of bickering 4-year-olds.
Welcome to slashdot! Enjoy your stay.
"Hey, lay off those people in Detroit. They're living in Mad Max times! ... " - Moe Szyslak