I don't know that is tough one. Nobody can really force us to give up control of the root zones and the last time it was tried it was pretty unpopular.
I really doubt our government would be inclined to yield control over an incident like this. For lots of technical reasons you could not very will mix root servers in your hints; if those root servers have a different idea of truth. You would get instability and chaos.
If some international group or other country stand up its own root servers you will have chaos as well. Which DNS do you use? What domain registrations are valid where. What happens when I try to mail someone in another country does it go to the person I am expecting or someone else who happens to have the same domain on my DNS?
The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by. This type of action is the only way they have to apply pressure. It make perfect sense to me; piss off an industry with a powerful domestic lobby and hope they lean on their government to fix the situation and yesterday.
Personally I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place; that would be the best outcome for us citizens. That naturally is a pipe dream. We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue). As to places like Antigua doing things like this or China for that matter well we either consider infringement on what we feel is our property a serious enough matter that its an act of war or we don't. I would seriously hope the answer to that is we don't but its a democracy let the people decided not some international body.
I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.
The issue these patches are addressing though have nothing to do with security from the perspective of the machines owner.
I agree a bios that only executes and signed boot loader and boot loader that only executes a signed kernel image *could* be valuable tools to enable an operator to validate the machine has not been compromised. As the machines owner though *I* not anyone else unless I so designate should have the ability and possess the sole authority to sign boot loaders and kernels.
There is no legitimate need to do what these patches do nor add some other method to verify the integrity of resume images. Why because integrity protection of the resume image already exists if the machines owner enables it. Hibernation on Linux works with full disk encryption enabled. Its not possible for anyone who does not control the disk encryption keys ( the machines owner ) to alter that image when disk encryption is in use. There is not legitimate security objective in denying the machines owner and authorized operators the ability alter their own data.
I am not against secure and I think many others are not either, what we are against is measures and thinking like this that clearly have nothing to do with protecting the machine's legitimate owners and operators but instead are about marginalizing other platforms to make a certain vendors more commercially viable, or about directly enforcing the interests of others who have no ownership of the machine over those of its lawful owners and operators.
Replying to my own post. Okay there is one reason to have some secondary method. That reason would be to prevent the lawful owner of said machine who controls the disk encryption keys from altering the image. Which I don't consider to be a legitimate reason. Its my machine I should be able to load anything into its memory I like; by any method I can make work.
No its really not. If you can tamper with the resume image it basically means you had physical access to the machine, or something equivalent if the machine is a VM.
Full disk encryption available on Linux via LUKS can protect the integrity of the resume image. So there is no reason, none, nadda, for the kernel to have some second method to verify the integrity of the suspend to disk image.
If you are not running FDE than anytime a system has been outside of your physical control it should be assumed to be compromised anyway.
Speeding, theft, trespassing, are all things that should take a properly function court no more than an hour to hear and settle unless there are really interesting legal questions to deal with. There evidence is there or its not for the vast majority of those cases. Many states and localities actually REQUIRE minors to go to court for those infractions; they can't skip the trial.
Court costs are often part of the punishment for those crime if you are convicted and I think that is perfectly fair. I am not opposed to letting most of these minor matters be handled as bench trials, unless the defendant requests a jury, and thereby incurs the risks court costs will be much higher if they are found to be guilty.
Finally our system of justice was originally designed around the idea that its better we let 10 guilty men walk than punish 1 innocent. If lots guilty people are walking because the system can't follow its own procedures; than chances are things are not working so well for the innocent either. That is clear indicator the system is not working and needs to be fixed immediately because obviously it poses an unjust risk of false conviction to the innocent. So in short I am not uncomfortable with that proposition either.
Then maybe the problem is there are two many minor infractions. If we are not willing to give someone their day in court over a matter than we probably should not be regulating it in the first place
Even if we develop near light travel and start to explore deep space with multi-generational bio-sphere ships we could easily use energy on such a scale.
Lets assume we can accelerate a space craft to.9C, that puts some near by galaxies in reach, within a few generations. I don't think you anything beyond that is practical because I don't think for social reasons it will be possible to stay on mission when none of the oldest living crew people can remember any of the folks who started out.
So to get anywhere in acceptable time; you need to get up to speed fast, energy intensive, and you nee to be able to stay at speed until you very nearly reach your destination, and then you need to be able slow down very fast, also an energy intensive process.
Its a safe bet a self sustaining vessel is going to be very massive, so its going to take incredible forces to get to top speed and come down from top speed. Fission won't do that for us, you need to be able to get there in weeks not years.
You bet I am a wannabee. I don't like those guys either but they are not going away. If I could be above the law and have the power to hold the worlds most powerful democracy hostage anytime I like, yea I won't say no. Would my general sense of fair play make me a better actor were I to find myself in that position, than the current crop? I'd like to think so; but they say power corrupts.
Like I said those guys are not going anywhere. The rest of us little mice have to deal with crumbs left at the table after the PTBs have finished their feast and passed out from too much drink. I for one don't leave anything left on the table.. There is not much their to start with (proportionally speaking), my advice take whatever you can get. I'll never be more than mouse but with a little luck, and some cleverness I have a chance at being a plump one.
I think the point is he and I do like like the processing fee and we like the current system where is rolled into the retailers general expenses. Some of it gets kicked back to me in the form of rewards and other CC company giveaways. I am collecting an economic rent for all the idiots out there who can't get a credit card because they destroyed their credit; or don't use one because they can't manage money they don't hold in their hand physically. I like that fine.
I use a credit card for two reasons. A) If someone swipes/steals that information, they're stealing VISA's money, not mine. If I use a debit card and they steal my info, they drain my bank account, my mortgage bounces. That's bad. B) Rewards programs. I get thousands of dollars a year in rewards. I put/everything/ on my credit card. Only thing I don't is my mortgage and that's just because I can't. I pay it off every month. Companies that are going to make this less advantageous for me are going to get less of my business.
If you think these benefits are worth it, why should others who don't benefit share the cost?
Nobody held a gun to the heads of retailers and forced them to accept credit cards. They entered into these agreements with the CC companies in the first place because they knew they'd do more sales if they could transact more easily. If the customer is about to make an impulse buy but don't have the cash and must first find an ATM or bank, they might rethink the purchase and not come back. If a customer is using cash they generally have a much better idea of how much and how fast they are spending money and spend less of it. Sure there are the small minority of card users who keep receipts, track everything carefully, and pay it off each month; but that's few.
Big retail LOVES credit cards. I used to data warehouse work for a certain large home store chain. One of the first things you notice is that when the tender type is CC, customers not only spend more but they also had far more average items per ticket. Trust me it might not be core business but lots of revenue was driven by those ridiculously marked up Gator bottles, strange screw driver contraptions imported by the truck load from Asia for pennies, and other junk nobody really needs for anything.
The reason those others should share they cost is they are getting benefits as well. Maybe not as many and maybe not as direct but they are there. Stores can carry a wider variety of merch, they guy in line ahead of you checks out faster just to name two. My question to you non CC user is why aren't you using one? Can't manage your money? I agree with the grandparent as well those rewards programs can be VERY VERY good if your careful. Make sure you understand the fee structure on them, make sure you buy the right things on the right cards. Don't hate us players.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not but the two are hardly the same.
Steve's idea was to sell something for $40 that the customer could build themselves for $20, a 100% markup. The idea the folks behind Raspberry Pi have is to order parts in a quantity of scale that allows them to build and sell you something you could not hope to put together yourself for that price.
No if you ran a toy company you'd have gotten to such a position by having enough good sense to not piss of entire communities who might represent potential customers.
The correct response was either silence, and just let people draw their own conclusions, or pretty much what they said. Now if they had said on no's sorry we will pull the product immediately that would also be pathetic and stupid.
Its a pretty good bet South Korea and China won't step up. We simple broadcast in Korean on Voice of America that we are cutting off the assistance and why.
The North Koreans can then do something about their government or stave. I think we should try hard to no care which they choose.
But there is nothing wrong with Google sending "Bob's Construction collapse". The message is given in context, the context of entering search terms, not the context of results.
If you see a road sign that says "Watch for Falling Rock", you interpret it in the context of driving. If you interpret it as a direct command; take your eyes off the road to stair exclusively at the cliff face while your car leaves its lane and runs into on coming traffic, is it the DOT's fault?
Yes the rich got even richer faster; but for the most part the middle class gained as well and the quality of living went up quite a great deal for the poor. The fact is liberals keep moving the goal posts.
Under Feudalism, the Lords and their top tier vassals were the Aristocrats. That is literally how the word was defined. The "Middle Class" when there was one was small and consisted of free merchants and trades men of one type or another. Their was usually royalty who were also the the top aristocrats. Serfs were people who were not exactly slaves but certainly were not exactly free to leave either, and were employed by an aristocrat. There usually was a clergy class as well where your scholar types would have belonged in most cases and they had their own defined social order.
There are incredibly simple ways to address the issue though. You simply rebate taxes up to a certain amount; but you let everyone take the rebate.
So lets say you say anything under 24K is poverty ( thats bs; but its what Obummer would have us think) and that the national sales tax is to be 3%
You say anyone who can show they paid national sales tax can get a refund up to but no more than $720. Boom the "poor" have paid no federal taxes, everyone else is free to exercise their wealth and be taxed on it or save it and probably be taxed on it later.
I am tired of that argument because out side of a few extremely narrow cases like roads and standardizing weights and measures its BULL SHIT!
There are some activities that are parasitic and yes those should be taxed, but most actives increase everyone wealth. I might get rich manufacturing cars, I also create a ton of jobs. There is no reason that the activity of manufacturing cars should be taxed. Society is already better of for the fact someone is doing it. Why punish a good deed?
NAT64 is not the solution so many here make it out to be. The original sensible migration path was to use dual stack and get most services over to ipv6 before the v4 space ran out.
Everyone here knows the problems with less than 1:1 NAT in a pure v4 world. Slashdot'ers complain bitterly about it all the time. NAT64 brings all those problems and more.
Think about this. Suppose your v6 only mail relay needs to send mail to a v4 only relay. It looks up the MX for the domain, than looks up the name it gets in response. Oh there is only A record no AAAA. Okay no problem right?
We will just set up our DNS server to generate synthetic AAAA records when only an A rec exists and prefix the A record with the ipv6 network address spaced allocated for NAT'ing to the ipv4 space. Sounds good but now you have to give up DNSSEC or deal with even more complexity.
Oh that remote mail server wants to a reverse lookup? How does a v4 only host deal with ipv6 PTR record? it probably doesn't. In any case the source ip points back at an address being used by the NAT gateway; but that's dynamic so the DNS server is going to have aware of the NAT device and probably be capable of generating synthetic PTR records on the fly.
NAT64 is probably fine for the base case of contacting some webserver via http(s). It really falls down pretty fast when you think about other protocols, and typical SOPs on legacy systems that make all kids of assumptions about ipv4 addressing. Its not just smtp either think about all the stuff both older UNIX and Windows systems do by source subnet. Which by definition are the ones you have the NAT64 gateway in the first place. As for WWW access a traditional layer 7 proxy server for use when only an A record exists is likely a better choice.
This feet dragging that's gone will mean that largish deployments of things like NAT64 are likely to be required; and that's unfortunate; because it takes what would have been a somewhat complex transition and turned it into something that is going to be a costly train wreck with difficult and confusing brokenness all over the place.
It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the unions. They manipulated the labor market to artificially keep wages high and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.
See cuts both ways. The best thing for the market is to disallow all collusion.
I think the real reason I have never looked at Job's as a hero is his hypocrisy. Ruthless people don't bother me as long as they play by their own rules. It always seemed like whatever Apple did or whatever Steve did was okay even if he'd just given someone else the public riot act, or sued them for the very same.
I seriously hope US courts would make the sensible ruling here.
That is auto complete is a simple statement of fact. It says there is a relationship between the tokens you have typed and the tokens suggested. That relationship is that others have frequently paired them as search terms, or that they frequently appear together in indexed documents, or some other computable algorithm relates them.
Its a plain and provable statement of fact, therefore its not libel, slander, or defamation.
It should not be Google's problem that Joe Sixpack is to deeply retarded to understand that if he types "Bob's Construction" and auto-complete suggests he adds "collapse" it does not imply Bob builds things that collapse. For all he knows at that point there is a document out there with the sentence:
"The house built by Bob's Construction was so well put together it did not collapse even after we drove a truck into it repeatedly."
These cases attempt blame the tool maker for the users not knowing how to use it. Its stupid. I understand how if you are Bob in the above situation you might not be thrilled; but that does not give you the right to punish Google for the public's aggressive ignorance.
I think the free speech issues trump it. Look the right to be forgot requires dictating what someone else can do or say about what the know. That is by its nature invasive. The privacy aspect on the other hand is not. If you don't want to have record of your activities on Facebook or anywhere else don't use it. If you don't trust a business with your personal information don't do business with them.
The choice is between invasive regulation and education should be selected. If this is really a serious issue, these governments should create some public service announcements suggesting people should consider not providing personal information; remind them that anything they post on line might hand around and follow them for the rest of their lives. Generally remind people their are risks and rewards for participating in loyalty programs, social media, etc and they need to consider both sides. Governments manage to run massive anti drug campaigns, anti smoking, abuse awareness; they can and should do a privacy awareness.
That makes much more sense than trying to legislate what *I* can do with an e-mail *you* sent me.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that is tough one. Nobody can really force us to give up control of the root zones and the last time it was tried it was pretty unpopular.
I really doubt our government would be inclined to yield control over an incident like this. For lots of technical reasons you could not very will mix root servers in your hints; if those root servers have a different idea of truth. You would get instability and chaos.
If some international group or other country stand up its own root servers you will have chaos as well. Which DNS do you use? What domain registrations are valid where. What happens when I try to mail someone in another country does it go to the person I am expecting or someone else who happens to have the same domain on my DNS?
We'd have to go back to bang paths.
The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by. This type of action is the only way they have to apply pressure. It make perfect sense to me; piss off an industry with a powerful domestic lobby and hope they lean on their government to fix the situation and yesterday.
Personally I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place; that would be the best outcome for us citizens. That naturally is a pipe dream. We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue). As to places like Antigua doing things like this or China for that matter well we either consider infringement on what we feel is our property a serious enough matter that its an act of war or we don't. I would seriously hope the answer to that is we don't but its a democracy let the people decided not some international body.
I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.
The issue these patches are addressing though have nothing to do with security from the perspective of the machines owner.
I agree a bios that only executes and signed boot loader and boot loader that only executes a signed kernel image *could* be valuable tools to enable an operator to validate the machine has not been compromised. As the machines owner though *I* not anyone else unless I so designate should have the ability and possess the sole authority to sign boot loaders and kernels.
There is no legitimate need to do what these patches do nor add some other method to verify the integrity of resume images. Why because integrity protection of the resume image already exists if the machines owner enables it. Hibernation on Linux works with full disk encryption enabled. Its not possible for anyone who does not control the disk encryption keys ( the machines owner ) to alter that image when disk encryption is in use. There is not legitimate security objective in denying the machines owner and authorized operators the ability alter their own data.
I am not against secure and I think many others are not either, what we are against is measures and thinking like this that clearly have nothing to do with protecting the machine's legitimate owners and operators but instead are about marginalizing other platforms to make a certain vendors more commercially viable, or about directly enforcing the interests of others who have no ownership of the machine over those of its lawful owners and operators.
Replying to my own post. Okay there is one reason to have some secondary method. That reason would be to prevent the lawful owner of said machine who controls the disk encryption keys from altering the image. Which I don't consider to be a legitimate reason. Its my machine I should be able to load anything into its memory I like; by any method I can make work.
No its really not. If you can tamper with the resume image it basically means you had physical access to the machine, or something equivalent if the machine is a VM.
Full disk encryption available on Linux via LUKS can protect the integrity of the resume image. So there is no reason, none, nadda, for the kernel to have some second method to verify the integrity of the suspend to disk image.
If you are not running FDE than anytime a system has been outside of your physical control it should be assumed to be compromised anyway.
Speeding, theft, trespassing, are all things that should take a properly function court no more than an hour to hear and settle unless there are really interesting legal questions to deal with. There evidence is there or its not for the vast majority of those cases. Many states and localities actually REQUIRE minors to go to court for those infractions; they can't skip the trial.
Court costs are often part of the punishment for those crime if you are convicted and I think that is perfectly fair. I am not opposed to letting most of these minor matters be handled as bench trials, unless the defendant requests a jury, and thereby incurs the risks court costs will be much higher if they are found to be guilty.
Finally our system of justice was originally designed around the idea that its better we let 10 guilty men walk than punish 1 innocent. If lots guilty people are walking because the system can't follow its own procedures; than chances are things are not working so well for the innocent either. That is clear indicator the system is not working and needs to be fixed immediately because obviously it poses an unjust risk of false conviction to the innocent. So in short I am not uncomfortable with that proposition either.
Then maybe the problem is there are two many minor infractions. If we are not willing to give someone their day in court over a matter than we probably should not be regulating it in the first place
Even if we develop near light travel and start to explore deep space with multi-generational bio-sphere ships we could easily use energy on such a scale.
Lets assume we can accelerate a space craft to .9C, that puts some near by galaxies in reach, within a few generations. I don't think you anything beyond that is practical because I don't think for social reasons it will be possible to stay on mission when none of the oldest living crew people can remember any of the folks who started out.
So to get anywhere in acceptable time; you need to get up to speed fast, energy intensive, and you nee to be able to stay at speed until you very nearly reach your destination, and then you need to be able slow down very fast, also an energy intensive process.
Its a safe bet a self sustaining vessel is going to be very massive, so its going to take incredible forces to get to top speed and come down from top speed. Fission won't do that for us, you need to be able to get there in weeks not years.
You bet I am a wannabee. I don't like those guys either but they are not going away. If I could be above the law and have the power to hold the worlds most powerful democracy hostage anytime I like, yea I won't say no. Would my general sense of fair play make me a better actor were I to find myself in that position, than the current crop? I'd like to think so; but they say power corrupts.
Like I said those guys are not going anywhere. The rest of us little mice have to deal with crumbs left at the table after the PTBs have finished their feast and passed out from too much drink. I for one don't leave anything left on the table.. There is not much their to start with (proportionally speaking), my advice take whatever you can get. I'll never be more than mouse but with a little luck, and some cleverness I have a chance at being a plump one.
I think the point is he and I do like like the processing fee and we like the current system where is rolled into the retailers general expenses. Some of it gets kicked back to me in the form of rewards and other CC company giveaways. I am collecting an economic rent for all the idiots out there who can't get a credit card because they destroyed their credit; or don't use one because they can't manage money they don't hold in their hand physically. I like that fine.
I use a credit card for two reasons. /everything/ on my credit card. Only thing I don't is my mortgage and that's just because I can't. I pay it off every month. Companies that are going to make this less advantageous for me are going to get less of my business.
A) If someone swipes/steals that information, they're stealing VISA's money, not mine. If I use a debit card and they steal my info, they drain my bank account, my mortgage bounces. That's bad.
B) Rewards programs. I get thousands of dollars a year in rewards. I put
If you think these benefits are worth it, why should others who don't benefit share the cost?
Nobody held a gun to the heads of retailers and forced them to accept credit cards. They entered into these agreements with the CC companies in the first place because they knew they'd do more sales if they could transact more easily. If the customer is about to make an impulse buy but don't have the cash and must first find an ATM or bank, they might rethink the purchase and not come back. If a customer is using cash they generally have a much better idea of how much and how fast they are spending money and spend less of it. Sure there are the small minority of card users who keep receipts, track everything carefully, and pay it off each month; but that's few.
Big retail LOVES credit cards. I used to data warehouse work for a certain large home store chain. One of the first things you notice is that when the tender type is CC, customers not only spend more but they also had far more average items per ticket. Trust me it might not be core business but lots of revenue was driven by those ridiculously marked up Gator bottles, strange screw driver contraptions imported by the truck load from Asia for pennies, and other junk nobody really needs for anything.
The reason those others should share they cost is they are getting benefits as well. Maybe not as many and maybe not as direct but they are there. Stores can carry a wider variety of merch, they guy in line ahead of you checks out faster just to name two. My question to you non CC user is why aren't you using one? Can't manage your money? I agree with the grandparent as well those rewards programs can be VERY VERY good if your careful. Make sure you understand the fee structure on them, make sure you buy the right things on the right cards. Don't hate us players.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not but the two are hardly the same.
Steve's idea was to sell something for $40 that the customer could build themselves for $20, a 100% markup. The idea the folks behind Raspberry Pi have is to order parts in a quantity of scale that allows them to build and sell you something you could not hope to put together yourself for that price.
That is not the same thing at all.
No if you ran a toy company you'd have gotten to such a position by having enough good sense to not piss of entire communities who might represent potential customers.
The correct response was either silence, and just let people draw their own conclusions, or pretty much what they said. Now if they had said on no's sorry we will pull the product immediately that would also be pathetic and stupid.
Its a pretty good bet South Korea and China won't step up. We simple broadcast in Korean on Voice of America that we are cutting off the assistance and why.
The North Koreans can then do something about their government or stave. I think we should try hard to no care which they choose.
But there is nothing wrong with Google sending "Bob's Construction collapse". The message is given in context, the context of entering search terms, not the context of results.
If you see a road sign that says "Watch for Falling Rock", you interpret it in the context of driving. If you interpret it as a direct command; take your eyes off the road to stair exclusively at the cliff face while your car leaves its lane and runs into on coming traffic, is it the DOT's fault?
That simply is NOT TRUE.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-fairer-look-at-taxes-and-wealth-2012-10-12
Yes the rich got even richer faster; but for the most part the middle class gained as well and the quality of living went up quite a great deal for the poor. The fact is liberals keep moving the goal posts.
I think you are a bit confused..
Under Feudalism, the Lords and their top tier vassals were the Aristocrats. That is literally how the word was defined. The "Middle Class" when there was one was small and consisted of free merchants and trades men of one type or another. Their was usually royalty who were also the the top aristocrats. Serfs were people who were not exactly slaves but certainly were not exactly free to leave either, and were employed by an aristocrat. There usually was a clergy class as well where your scholar types would have belonged in most cases and they had their own defined social order.
There are incredibly simple ways to address the issue though. You simply rebate taxes up to a certain amount; but you let everyone take the rebate.
So lets say you say anything under 24K is poverty ( thats bs; but its what Obummer would have us think) and that the national sales tax is to be 3%
You say anyone who can show they paid national sales tax can get a refund up to but no more than $720. Boom the "poor" have paid no federal taxes, everyone else is free to exercise their wealth and be taxed on it or save it and probably be taxed on it later.
I am tired of that argument because out side of a few extremely narrow cases like roads and standardizing weights and measures its BULL SHIT!
There are some activities that are parasitic and yes those should be taxed, but most actives increase everyone wealth. I might get rich manufacturing cars, I also create a ton of jobs. There is no reason that the activity of manufacturing cars should be taxed. Society is already better of for the fact someone is doing it. Why punish a good deed?
NAT64 is not the solution so many here make it out to be. The original sensible migration path was to use dual stack and get most services over to ipv6 before the v4 space ran out.
Everyone here knows the problems with less than 1:1 NAT in a pure v4 world. Slashdot'ers complain bitterly about it all the time. NAT64 brings all those problems and more.
Think about this. Suppose your v6 only mail relay needs to send mail to a v4 only relay. It looks up the MX for the domain, than looks up the name it gets in response. Oh there is only A record no AAAA. Okay no problem right?
We will just set up our DNS server to generate synthetic AAAA records when only an A rec exists and prefix the A record with the ipv6 network address spaced allocated for NAT'ing to the ipv4 space. Sounds good but now you have to give up DNSSEC or deal with even more complexity.
Oh that remote mail server wants to a reverse lookup? How does a v4 only host deal with ipv6 PTR record? it probably doesn't. In any case the source ip points back at an address being used by the NAT gateway; but that's dynamic so the DNS server is going to have aware of the NAT device and probably be capable of generating synthetic PTR records on the fly.
NAT64 is probably fine for the base case of contacting some webserver via http(s). It really falls down pretty fast when you think about other protocols, and typical SOPs on legacy systems that make all kids of assumptions about ipv4 addressing. Its not just smtp either think about all the stuff both older UNIX and Windows systems do by source subnet. Which by definition are the ones you have the NAT64 gateway in the first place. As for WWW access a traditional layer 7 proxy server for use when only an A record exists is likely a better choice.
This feet dragging that's gone will mean that largish deployments of things like NAT64 are likely to be required; and that's unfortunate; because it takes what would have been a somewhat complex transition and turned it into something that is going to be a costly train wreck with difficult and confusing brokenness all over the place.
It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the unions. They manipulated the labor market to artificially keep wages high and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.
See cuts both ways. The best thing for the market is to disallow all collusion.
I think the real reason I have never looked at Job's as a hero is his hypocrisy. Ruthless people don't bother me as long as they play by their own rules. It always seemed like whatever Apple did or whatever Steve did was okay even if he'd just given someone else the public riot act, or sued them for the very same.
I seriously hope US courts would make the sensible ruling here.
That is auto complete is a simple statement of fact. It says there is a relationship between the tokens you have typed and the tokens suggested. That relationship is that others have frequently paired them as search terms, or that they frequently appear together in indexed documents, or some other computable algorithm relates them.
Its a plain and provable statement of fact, therefore its not libel, slander, or defamation.
It should not be Google's problem that Joe Sixpack is to deeply retarded to understand that if he types "Bob's Construction" and auto-complete suggests he adds "collapse" it does not imply Bob builds things that collapse. For all he knows at that point there is a document out there with the sentence:
"The house built by Bob's Construction was so well put together it did not collapse even after we drove a truck into it repeatedly."
These cases attempt blame the tool maker for the users not knowing how to use it. Its stupid. I understand how if you are Bob in the above situation you might not be thrilled; but that does not give you the right to punish Google for the public's aggressive ignorance.
I think the free speech issues trump it. Look the right to be forgot requires dictating what someone else can do or say about what the know. That is by its nature invasive. The privacy aspect on the other hand is not. If you don't want to have record of your activities on Facebook or anywhere else don't use it. If you don't trust a business with your personal information don't do business with them.
The choice is between invasive regulation and education should be selected. If this is really a serious issue, these governments should create some public service announcements suggesting people should consider not providing personal information; remind them that anything they post on line might hand around and follow them for the rest of their lives. Generally remind people their are risks and rewards for participating in loyalty programs, social media, etc and they need to consider both sides. Governments manage to run massive anti drug campaigns, anti smoking, abuse awareness; they can and should do a privacy awareness.
That makes much more sense than trying to legislate what *I* can do with an e-mail *you* sent me.