I really enjoy when, while posting, I know there are truck-sized holes in my argument - ones that could only be solved by making it TL,dr. Very occasionally, someone finds all of those holes in a response and presents it more effectively than I could have. And well.
Thank you. Take this as tacit agreement to all of your points.
He's right. But, it showed poor judgement to say as much. The beer swilling, football watching masses don't get nuance. That "as long as" qualifies as nuance for that crowd. Now he's tarred as a pedophile sympathizer for life, at least on the idiot side of the house.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
I want to love RMS but he makes it really hard to do so.
You failed to point out why setting up a system of rents for simple ideas - and punitive, intrusive enforcement systems for what essentially amounts to a thought crime - benefits society as a whole. I'm not highly interested in what individual people do in their business. Life changes, some old occupations go away and new ones are created. It sucks, but life sucks too. If I lose my job tomorrow, I don't expect the general public to be very concerned, and I return the lack of concern.
The only real consideration for intellectual property law is the ultimate benefit to society of its existence. Does it extract more effort and creativity out of the public, improving our collective standard of living, or does it produce endless remakes using stale intellectual property which benefit a tiny elite with luxury goods?
Also, blaming RMS for this is not fair either. He's a firm believer in intellectual property: the GPL wouldn't work without it.
I can, however, prove that the population is larger this year than last year, by about 2 million. I can also demonstrate that the population has increased from 281.5 million in 2000 to about 311 million this year, over a 10% increase. There has been no commensurate increase in airline passengers. So your entire point is demonstrably false.
One IOS update fixes that. The firewalls don't care, they pass addresses regardless of their origin. For that matter, on the IOS devices, one could route-map a fix for the D and E blocks without even an update, though an update would make it easier. It's not anywhere near as hard as doing IPv6. Flashing routers is easy. Writing configurations is hard.
You folks can keep fooling yourselves that IPv6 is easy...doesn't mean anyone else is buying, though.
IPv6 is infinitely more complex than v4. Sorry. You just don't know what you're talking about when you say that it's simpler or equivalent. You're looking at it from a jaded perspective. No user will ever understand this heap of dynamic configuration. They won't be able to troubleshoot it. They'll resist switching to it, kicking and screaming all the way.
Why? Well, go back to why IPv4 won out in the first place. The use of TCP/IP version 4 on the network even back in the 90s was not a given. You could run IPX or AppleTalk amongst other protocols over a wide area network. True, they sucked. I spent a few weeks at a major telco's headquarters trying to tune AppleTalk to run over a WAN. It wasn't pretty - these protocols were made for LAN use and required constant handshaking and ACKs that were relatively painless on a LAN but destroyed performance over DS-3 class WAN links. Still, it could have been done, given time and effort and coding resources. There were ways to apply the lessons of IP to these protocols.
Instead, everyone put the effort into writing TCP/IP stacks - or taking them from BSD, really. The reason wasn't technical superiority. The reason was that the protocol was fully intelligible to those who were working with it, given a bit of study. In comparison, the other protocols of the time were dynamically configured and hid most elements of addressing from the end user. TCP/IP was written to be simple and straightforward. The others weren't, they had different design goals - dynamic configuration aka usability by complete morons being one of them, particularly in the case of AppleTalk. IPX was no slouch in this department, though. I seem to remember pretty much the only choice in addressing required was the IPX internal network number on a Netware 2 or 3.x box.
Once people saw how easy IP was to set up, they wanted it, and the OS vendors (Apple and Microsoft, mostly) chose to embrace it rather than provide an opening for someone else.
With IPv6, the authors have pretty much come full circle. It's an almost totally dynamic protocol from the perspective of the end user. It's like someone took one of the dynamic LAN protocols of yore and made it work well in the WAN sphere. You think this is good. I think this is bad. The barrier to understanding how it works is much higher than with v4. It has duplicated functionality, a sure sign of design by dysfunctional committee. No one wants it except geeks.
The bottom line is that I see this conversion ending up like the DTV fiasco that has just concluded. It took the better part of 20 years to do that conversion.
Then realize that Windows clients default to link-local addresses. Now, suddenly, the stuff in that page IS something you care about. User has address that doesn't work. Kind of like APIPA but completely unintelligible to the end user.
How about XP clients not supporting DNS on v6? Seen the numbers on how many XP clients are still out there?
Yeah, dead simple. Right. It's not simple and it won't be simple in the near term for anyone who doesn't do this for a living (and understand it) to switch. And by understanding I don't mean a freshly minted A+ help desk guy.
I don't use anything that doesn't just pass on the upstream, so I wouldn't know.
I'd rather just have the Apache (or whatever) release and not have to deal with the delay and potential for problems associated with someone else modifying and redistributing the upstream. The idea that, if I don't like the package maintainer's speed or choices, that I can just grab the upstream directly, compile, and slide it into my distro with minimal reconfiguration is fairly appealing also.
Christ. Arrogant much? last time I looked the Internet existed beyond the terrorist state known as the USA.
Your hate proves the submitter's point. You hate because the US is a hegemon. What happens outside the hegemon state is fairly irrelevant to those within.
Keep hating, it'll shorten your lifespan to no point.
My gear is replaced already: everything is IPv6 ready. I have a tunnel already feeding me IPv6.
That said, fixing IPv4 to last a few more years would be a single patch to the IP stacks of most systems. We could have the worst of it done in the next 3-6 months.
That would make more sense if IPv6 was easy. It isn't. It's a lot more complicated than IPv4 from a network engineering perspective and I don't see many people doing much to prepare for it in a mindshare sense. v4 was easy in comparison, but even then, it took a few years in the 90s before most private sector types were fully understanding it.
I couldn't see any significant switch even 5 years out.
Only the regional NICs have run out of blocks to distribute. No one has actually run out of IPv4 addresses. Moreover, there is a lot that still can be done to reclaim addresses. Lastly, the huge swathes of multicast and class E addresses haven't even been tapped.
This is just more attempts for the shill media to try to herd people into replacing their gear. It'll fail like the rest.
The USG was scheduled to go to IPv6 in 2006. It hasn't even begun yet.
Well, thanks for the info. I haven't touched a RPM based distro in about 10 years, too much RPM hell with shared libraries and nonworking compilers on RH distros. Forgot about their tendency to backport, thereby creating dependence on RH.
By the time the hydrogen bomb was being created, most of the best minds had left the project. The lack of immediacy - no Hitler to defeat - and difficulties with the government management of the project convinced all but the most hardcore to return to academia.
Gaining power is hard, too. Do you think that those who clawed their way to the top of the system have any interest in having their actions dictated by a bunch of nerds, beyond absolute unavoidable necessity?
Read up on the Manhattan Project and how the best minds in the world were treated by the military and the US Government. It should be instructive in understanding the "anti-science" attitude of the government today. The people changed, the mindset didn't. It isn't anti-science, it's anti ceding power.
We have a special word - statesman - for politicians who stop feeding at the trough long enough to do something good for mankind, or at least their nation. This word is not used often about politicians for good reason.
In regards the threats, the truth often results in same. I've outlasted the others, i'll outlast you.
You'd think the sure knowledge that 95% of humankind annoys the crap out of me would give you some solace, at least. Judging by your comments, schadenfreude and/or sadistic infliction of misery is your bag.
The common attitude towards geeks might be true, but at least I pity those who will never understand this shit and try to throw them a bone here and there. A BASIC interpreter qualifies as a bone. It's the net below the trapeze that tries to save them before they give up out of frustration.
This is not absolutely true. You assume, for instance, that people who have over $1mil of personal wealth are necessarily wise in all areas. I know a certain guy who runs a multi-million dollar defense contractor who keeps $2mil in his non-interest bearing petty cash account.
That is anecdotal, but i'm just saying...you assume too much.
FICA is not withheld beyond a certain maximum income (unlike Medicare). The cutoff is $106,800, and has been for the last 3 years. Back in the early 00s it was in the 80k range. In any event, after you've paid in your $6600 or so in FICA yearly, you don't get the withholding anymore, so there's no payroll tax cut for you after this limit is reached. But if you think about it, if you are making enough that FICA withholding cuts out on you faster, that means you got fewer $40 a pay period cuts. Therefore you got less of this particular tax holiday.
Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of this measure, it is not targeted at the rich.
Slashdot Mirror
I really enjoy when, while posting, I know there are truck-sized holes in my argument - ones that could only be solved by making it TL,dr. Very occasionally, someone finds all of those holes in a response and presents it more effectively than I could have. And well.
Thank you. Take this as tacit agreement to all of your points.
He's right. But, it showed poor judgement to say as much. The beer swilling, football watching masses don't get nuance. That "as long as" qualifies as nuance for that crowd. Now he's tarred as a pedophile sympathizer for life, at least on the idiot side of the house.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
I want to love RMS but he makes it really hard to do so.
You failed to point out why setting up a system of rents for simple ideas - and punitive, intrusive enforcement systems for what essentially amounts to a thought crime - benefits society as a whole. I'm not highly interested in what individual people do in their business. Life changes, some old occupations go away and new ones are created. It sucks, but life sucks too. If I lose my job tomorrow, I don't expect the general public to be very concerned, and I return the lack of concern.
The only real consideration for intellectual property law is the ultimate benefit to society of its existence. Does it extract more effort and creativity out of the public, improving our collective standard of living, or does it produce endless remakes using stale intellectual property which benefit a tiny elite with luxury goods?
Also, blaming RMS for this is not fair either. He's a firm believer in intellectual property: the GPL wouldn't work without it.
And very, very, few people don't fly because of the TSA. serious, it MIGHT be 500 hundred people per year, maybe.
That sounds like a hard statistic.
Also, more people flew this year then last year.
That's probably true, but the statistics aren't available yet from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, so you can't prove it.
I can, however, prove that the population is larger this year than last year, by about 2 million. I can also demonstrate that the population has increased from 281.5 million in 2000 to about 311 million this year, over a 10% increase. There has been no commensurate increase in airline passengers. So your entire point is demonstrably false.
One IOS update fixes that. The firewalls don't care, they pass addresses regardless of their origin. For that matter, on the IOS devices, one could route-map a fix for the D and E blocks without even an update, though an update would make it easier. It's not anywhere near as hard as doing IPv6. Flashing routers is easy. Writing configurations is hard.
You folks can keep fooling yourselves that IPv6 is easy...doesn't mean anyone else is buying, though.
I'm going to jump all over you here. Sorry.
IPv6 is infinitely more complex than v4. Sorry. You just don't know what you're talking about when you say that it's simpler or equivalent. You're looking at it from a jaded perspective. No user will ever understand this heap of dynamic configuration. They won't be able to troubleshoot it. They'll resist switching to it, kicking and screaming all the way.
Why? Well, go back to why IPv4 won out in the first place. The use of TCP/IP version 4 on the network even back in the 90s was not a given. You could run IPX or AppleTalk amongst other protocols over a wide area network. True, they sucked. I spent a few weeks at a major telco's headquarters trying to tune AppleTalk to run over a WAN. It wasn't pretty - these protocols were made for LAN use and required constant handshaking and ACKs that were relatively painless on a LAN but destroyed performance over DS-3 class WAN links. Still, it could have been done, given time and effort and coding resources. There were ways to apply the lessons of IP to these protocols.
Instead, everyone put the effort into writing TCP/IP stacks - or taking them from BSD, really. The reason wasn't technical superiority. The reason was that the protocol was fully intelligible to those who were working with it, given a bit of study. In comparison, the other protocols of the time were dynamically configured and hid most elements of addressing from the end user. TCP/IP was written to be simple and straightforward. The others weren't, they had different design goals - dynamic configuration aka usability by complete morons being one of them, particularly in the case of AppleTalk. IPX was no slouch in this department, though. I seem to remember pretty much the only choice in addressing required was the IPX internal network number on a Netware 2 or 3.x box.
Once people saw how easy IP was to set up, they wanted it, and the OS vendors (Apple and Microsoft, mostly) chose to embrace it rather than provide an opening for someone else.
With IPv6, the authors have pretty much come full circle. It's an almost totally dynamic protocol from the perspective of the end user. It's like someone took one of the dynamic LAN protocols of yore and made it work well in the WAN sphere. You think this is good. I think this is bad. The barrier to understanding how it works is much higher than with v4. It has duplicated functionality, a sure sign of design by dysfunctional committee. No one wants it except geeks.
The bottom line is that I see this conversion ending up like the DTV fiasco that has just concluded. It took the better part of 20 years to do that conversion.
Find a router in Best Buy that supports it.
Then realize that Windows clients default to link-local addresses. Now, suddenly, the stuff in that page IS something you care about. User has address that doesn't work. Kind of like APIPA but completely unintelligible to the end user.
How about XP clients not supporting DNS on v6? Seen the numbers on how many XP clients are still out there?
Yeah, dead simple. Right. It's not simple and it won't be simple in the near term for anyone who doesn't do this for a living (and understand it) to switch. And by understanding I don't mean a freshly minted A+ help desk guy.
I don't use anything that doesn't just pass on the upstream, so I wouldn't know.
I'd rather just have the Apache (or whatever) release and not have to deal with the delay and potential for problems associated with someone else modifying and redistributing the upstream. The idea that, if I don't like the package maintainer's speed or choices, that I can just grab the upstream directly, compile, and slide it into my distro with minimal reconfiguration is fairly appealing also.
It's not simpler. The concept of addressing is completely different, for one.
Read this and tell me IPv6 is MUCH simpler. Puhleeeze.
Christ. Arrogant much? last time I looked the Internet existed beyond the terrorist state known as the USA.
Your hate proves the submitter's point. You hate because the US is a hegemon. What happens outside the hegemon state is fairly irrelevant to those within.
Keep hating, it'll shorten your lifespan to no point.
My gear is replaced already: everything is IPv6 ready. I have a tunnel already feeding me IPv6.
That said, fixing IPv4 to last a few more years would be a single patch to the IP stacks of most systems. We could have the worst of it done in the next 3-6 months.
That would make more sense if IPv6 was easy. It isn't. It's a lot more complicated than IPv4 from a network engineering perspective and I don't see many people doing much to prepare for it in a mindshare sense. v4 was easy in comparison, but even then, it took a few years in the 90s before most private sector types were fully understanding it.
I couldn't see any significant switch even 5 years out.
Only the regional NICs have run out of blocks to distribute. No one has actually run out of IPv4 addresses. Moreover, there is a lot that still can be done to reclaim addresses. Lastly, the huge swathes of multicast and class E addresses haven't even been tapped.
This is just more attempts for the shill media to try to herd people into replacing their gear. It'll fail like the rest.
The USG was scheduled to go to IPv6 in 2006. It hasn't even begun yet.
Well, thanks for the info. I haven't touched a RPM based distro in about 10 years, too much RPM hell with shared libraries and nonworking compilers on RH distros. Forgot about their tendency to backport, thereby creating dependence on RH.
Apache 2.2.15 was released 3/6/10.
Apache 2.2.21 was released 9/13/11.
So yeah, they were almost 2 years out of date.
The stratfor guys might have been in better shape if they'd kept their systems patched. Just sayin'
2.2.15 is not the latest. 2.2.21 is.
By the time the hydrogen bomb was being created, most of the best minds had left the project. The lack of immediacy - no Hitler to defeat - and difficulties with the government management of the project convinced all but the most hardcore to return to academia.
Gaining power is hard, too. Do you think that those who clawed their way to the top of the system have any interest in having their actions dictated by a bunch of nerds, beyond absolute unavoidable necessity?
Read up on the Manhattan Project and how the best minds in the world were treated by the military and the US Government. It should be instructive in understanding the "anti-science" attitude of the government today. The people changed, the mindset didn't. It isn't anti-science, it's anti ceding power.
We have a special word - statesman - for politicians who stop feeding at the trough long enough to do something good for mankind, or at least their nation. This word is not used often about politicians for good reason.
Thank you for understanding what I meant.
Gee, that must have struck close to home.
In regards the threats, the truth often results in same. I've outlasted the others, i'll outlast you.
You'd think the sure knowledge that 95% of humankind annoys the crap out of me would give you some solace, at least. Judging by your comments, schadenfreude and/or sadistic infliction of misery is your bag.
The common attitude towards geeks might be true, but at least I pity those who will never understand this shit and try to throw them a bone here and there. A BASIC interpreter qualifies as a bone. It's the net below the trapeze that tries to save them before they give up out of frustration.
It lets retards do things. You know, the 80-120 segment. It's enabling. The things they do don't have to be innovative or exciting.
This is not absolutely true. You assume, for instance, that people who have over $1mil of personal wealth are necessarily wise in all areas. I know a certain guy who runs a multi-million dollar defense contractor who keeps $2mil in his non-interest bearing petty cash account.
That is anecdotal, but i'm just saying...you assume too much.
No, this is not true.
FICA is not withheld beyond a certain maximum income (unlike Medicare). The cutoff is $106,800, and has been for the last 3 years. Back in the early 00s it was in the 80k range. In any event, after you've paid in your $6600 or so in FICA yearly, you don't get the withholding anymore, so there's no payroll tax cut for you after this limit is reached. But if you think about it, if you are making enough that FICA withholding cuts out on you faster, that means you got fewer $40 a pay period cuts. Therefore you got less of this particular tax holiday.
Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of this measure, it is not targeted at the rich.
Until they start losing their jobs due to the surtax.
You didn't think that anyone was going to modify their standard of living as a result of tax policy, did you?
If there's a law, and no one is there to enforce it, does anyone pay attention?
There's that credulity of yours again.