Yea, I'm waiting for my ISP to offer it too, so I can start experimenting with it. I won't use any of the tunneling services because I have a fast connection, so routing the packets trough a longer path than necessary (and this is what would hapen if my Pc decided to use IPv6 instead of v4 to connect to a server that supports both) will reduce my bandwidth, also, I doubt that any of those tunneling services would offer me 80mbps up/down for free.
Good -- more bandwidth for me.
It's a pretty bad scientist who makes conclusions with no experiments. While it would seem somewhat intuitive that tunnelling should increase your route length and somewhat decrease the amount of data stored in each packet, in my experiments tunnelling through the nearest Hurricane Electric servers, I'm actually getting better performance on a number of IPv6 specific sites than I do on the IPv4 versions. Facebook's IPv6 site is one example -- the latency seems to be quite a bit lower than their IPv4 version. I'm assuming this is probably because they have independent IPv6 infrastructure which isn't anywhere as heavily loaded as their IPv4 infrastructure (or they are using HE for their IPv6 connection, or they peer with them in some manner).
Besides which, most Internet traffic is tunnelled at one point or another, and when running dual stack you'll route IPv4 services the same as you do now. Concerns about tunnelling would be valid if you're transferring 100% of your traffic through a tunnel, but I don't think anyone is advocating that you stop all IPv4 traffic on your network today.
Also, my ISP said that they will not be taking the public v4 addresses away, so that's good news too.
in addition, the fact that my computers will have at least 3 IP addresses (one v4, one v6 internal, one v6 external) is not a very appealing thought, I'd rather have NAT for v6 too, but AFAIK nobody offers it, yet.
Why oh why would you want NAT? And why would you care that you have three IP addresses (one of which isn't even routable to the outside world)?
I mean seriously, we do all of this with domain names already, why not IPs?
Because domain names aren't routable.
If there is a shortage in China, you can't just get together a bunch of non-contiguous/24's from Africa, Oceania, and South America and sell them to those who need them in Asia -- routing table sizes would explode, and the Internet would pretty much fall apart. Subnets are aggregated into supernets to aggregate routes, and you can't start busting up the supernets without negatively impacting routability.
So even if you could buy and sell any sized block of IPs, you'd only be able to do so to someone who wanted to use your network provider. If your provider isn't where a potential buyer wants their data and services physically located, then there is no sale. Indeed, anything much lower than a/8 will most probably only be sellable to someone willing to connect to the same upstream provider as you, limiting the sale possibilities immensely. More importantly, as IP address blocks aren't entirely fungible due to the restriction of not being able to reasonably break up supernets, geographical areas with demand won't be able (or even want) to buy from regions where there is supply, doing nothing to alleviate the current IPv4 exhaustion.
Fortunately, the market has responded by making a huge number of IPv6 addresses available.
The main problem with N wifi is I do not have the connection speed to saturate my decade old plain ole 802.11B network. If I upgrade to N, rather than being capped by my provider to max out at about 33% of my network speed, I'll merely run at about 1% of my network speed. Who cares?
Anybody how has more than one host on their home network, and does data transfer between hosts?
I suppose if you only have one machine going out through your network, or if the hosts you do have never inter-communicate (or only do so at a superficial level), then sure -- 802.11b should be sufficient. Then again, so would 10-Base2 Coaxial networking (aka "fun with terminators!").
Personally, 802.11n is the best way to connect to the hosts on my home gigabit network. Not as good as wired (where I have got within 5% of the theoretical maximum throughput between hosts doing large file transfers -- over IPv6 at that), but still really nice for my wireless networked devices (that support it -- I'm looking at the two iPod Touches that necessitate my continuing to run a parallel 802.11g network).
Can it do BOTH WiFi N and WiFi G *at the same time*? If yes, then I might get one...:)
Yes, and you can even run N at 5Ghz and G at 2.4Ghz simultaneously. The latest Airport Extremes have dual independent radios specifically for this use case. Coupled with their IPv6 support (including IPv6 firewalling), IMO the Apple Airport Extreme is the best home wired/wireless router on the market.
And if you go beyond the Apple hype, you would see that by being in control of what goes in the app store, Apple is responsible too to make sure this does not happen.
Wrong, if only because you've ignored the case where a developer may specifically want to permit users to copy their apps to multiple systems (that belong to them or not). If you're releasing a free app, why on earth would you care whether or not the receipt is valid? Wouldn't you want as many people to be able to easily share and run it as possible, thus making checking the registration status moot?
If anything, Apple is doing the opposite of what you're accusing them of. They appear to be taking a hands-off approach to DRM here: if you want it, they've provided a mechanism for it. But if you don't want it, they don't enforce it, and if you do it wrong (as in the Angry Birds case), well, that's the developers fault, and not Apple's. Rovio should have done better QA on this aspect of their app if it was something they were worried about.
Because NAT is perfect for plug-n-play devices with questionable per-device security. Why on earth should consoles and internet-aware appliances at my folks house need a public address? They don't know much about security and getting rid of in-home NAT just exposes them to far more risk.
No, a stateful firewall is what is protecting them, not NAT. Nobody is suggesting that homes will no longer need a "router" device for their computing devices, consoles, media players, and other net-enabled devices to sit behind, which by default block all incoming port requests. That will remain the same. Having a private internal address doesn't fix those less-secure devices -- it's the device at the gateway to your home that permits or denies access. This won't change with IPv6, but you'll be able to have public addresses that are directly routable for those devices that do need them.
(Apple's Airport Extreme has a stateful IPv6 firewall built in, and it's default i a to block everything. It has the same interface to explicitly allow certain ports to certain hosts as for IPv4 with NAT, and does the same job).
As another poster has mentioned, you can turn the iPhone off -- the standard state most customers think of as "off" only really turns off the display.
However, a much easier way of doing the same thing is to just put the iPhone in Airplane mode. That mode disables all of the wireless subsystems at the hardware level, preventing it from being able to "phone home" in any way, shape, or form (I think airlines and various international air transport authorities would have a problem if the iPhone randomly overrode this mode when it felt like it).
I CAN speak for the home users which is what I primarily get my pay from, and the simple fact is there really aren't any friendly IPV6 routers at anywhere near a reasonable price point. As it is now you can get a $30 IPV4 router that is set up FOR home users, simple for them to operate, made for things like streaming media, etc, or you can buy a $100+ SMB router that does NOT have the home features, isn't really made for them, and is overall a bigger PITA with less features that they want/need and more features that they don't.
Or, you could buy an Apple Airport Extreme, which features built-in disk and printer sharing, dual radios, and full IPv6 support, and is made for very easy configuration by any Mac or Windows home user.
No, it's not a $30 device, but you obviously didn't do your research. The Airport Extreme is made for the people you specify, and does feature full IPv6 support. It will even setup a 6to4 tunnel for you if you don't have native IPv6 support from your ISP, and then provide autoconf data to any IPv6 enabled client that connects to it. No NAT, no punching holes for ports -- just plug and play IPv6.
the reply you're looking for is: "correlation does not imply causation", and fairly obvious.
not looking good today canadian theorists.
Really? Did you actually read the paper in question before making such an accusation?
As predicted, there was a significant positive correlation between individuals who scored higher on the NPI-16, the number of times Facebook was checked per day, and the time spent on Facebook per session. This result is consistent with the findings presented in another study that examined narcissism and Facebook activity.
Given these findings, it was hypothesized that narcissists would present a similar opportunity for self-promotion on Facebook. Results partially supported this hypothesis. Significant positive correlations were found between scores on the NPI-16 and self-promotion in the following areas: Main Photo, View Photos (20), Status Updates, and Notes. However, a Pearson correlation analysis failed to show a significant correlation between narcissism and About Me self-promotion.
(Emphasis added).
Indeed, the researcher spends her entire time pointing out in her paper that she found a variety of interesting correlations, and acknowledges the limitations of her research methodology. She doesn't once draw any definitive conclusions that the research means anything.
I'd say it's looking significantly better for Canadian theorists (well, in this case, a student) than it is for armchair/. posters who can't even be bothered to read the research as presented before commenting on it.
The more prolific the Facebook activity, the lower they rated on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the higher in the Narcissism Personality Inventory.
After agreeing to participate in this research study, Facebook owners were administered a brief four-part questionnaire. The first section required demographic information, including the participant's age and gender. The second section addressed Facebook activity; it required respondents to indicate the number of times they check their Facebook page per day and the time spent on Facebook per session. The remaining sections assessed two psychological constructs: self-esteem and narcissism.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used to measure participant self-esteem. This 10-item test measured self-esteem using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Example items include “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” The original reliability of this scale is 0.72. This measure has gained acceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity.
Narcissism was assessed using the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI)-16. The NPI-16 is a shorter, unidimensional measure of the NPI-40. While the 40-item measure revealed an =0.84, the NPI-16 has an =0.72. Despite this discrepancy, the two measures are correlated at r=0.90 (p
It'd be really cool to be able to see what sort of huge events were supposed to have happened on a given date according to some TV show, movie, book, or video game.
In 2010, a joint American-Soviet crew will take the Leonov to Jupiter, in order to investigate a strange object orbiting the planet, and to ascertain what happened back in 2001 to the Discovery, whose orbit around Io is deteriorating rapidly.
I really don't see how we are going to allocate 15/8 netblocks in a single year, when only one has been allocated this year, and only, what, three last year? four?
As pointed out below, your numbers are incorrect. By my count, the IANA has allocated 14/8's in 2010 (all to RIR's, probably aren't allocating each one to a single entity).
The big problem with your numbers is that the IANA only has to allocate 10 of the 15 remaining/8's to run out. This is because, according to their own policy (http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-remaining-ipv4-space.htm), once they get down to five/8's, they'll give one to each RIR.
The switch to IPv6 is going to become important not when all of the addresses are gone, but when the first RIR has no further addresses to assign. Once the last five/8's get assigned out, that's it -- if an RIR assigns out all of the address space in their last/8, that's it. The IANA will then switch to only assigning IPv6 address blocks (unless someone decides to give back their old Class A network to the IANA. I don't what what their policy would be in that case).
Tell me when you succeed in making a phone call with your iPad, young iPadawan, and let me know how you managed to fit it into your pocket.
While I understand the point you were trying to make, and won't argue that you'd need some pretty massive pockets to carry an iPad in your pants, there are a variety of VoIP apps available for the iPod touch/iPhone/iPad that work just fine. You need the Apple headphones with inline microphone for the iPod touch and iPad, and you may need an account with a SIP provider, but making phone calls from an iPad is hardly difficult or impossible. I haven't tried it on the iPad yet, but I run Fring over Vonage on my iPod touch quite successfully.
Seriously? You live somewhere where the neighbor's power and gas lines go through YOUR yard? Do you not attach to them along a power/gas right-of-way, perhaps in an adjacent alley?
You've obviously never lived on a strata title property.
Not only do all of my neighbours gas lines run through my yard, but I have all of the meters for my row of houses on the back of my house (fortunately, it's only a row of four houses).
I'm thinking of multitasking, a full featured browser, being able to use true software (FLOABT) rather than "apps", the ability to load other operating systems on it, etc.
Microsoft and PC vendors have invented this exact tablet several times over. So why don't you already own one?
Here's the crux for virtually everyone who has ever owned such a device: when you put a PC operating system and PC apps onto a device that is not a PC, you lose all the advantages of being a tablet, with none of the advantages of having an actual PC in front of you. 99.99% of the apps you'll be able to install on it will expect mouse and keyboard input. ISV's won't feel any need nor pressure to bring tablet-related features to their apps, and customers (by-and-large) won't want the tablet because they'll always feel like second-class citizens, trying to shoe-horn in apps that aren't designed with their access needs (or power consumption needs) in mind.
If you want the kind of tablet you're describing, by all means -- go out there and buy one. They've been around for years. Just promise me you'll come back in a month or two and let us know how it's working out for you.
Multimedia operations that are be done in a browser process don't usually benefit from working on big numbers, but they do benefit from crunching lots of smaller numbers at one time. That's what these SIMD extensions do, and a "64-bit" architecture isn't necessary for that.
No, but on Intel architectures they do benefit from the fact that in x64 mode, you have twice as many general purpose registers on chip. More registers means that more data can be kept in the CPU at once, reducing cache hits and speeding up all computation.
64-bit compilers for x64 processors can thus better plan register layout. This can make a noticeable difference for all 64-bit applications (beyond the most trivial cases that wouldn't need to use more than 8 general purpose registers in the first place).
Note that this isn't an intrinsic benefit to 64-bit computing, but more a benefit of 64 bit computing on Intel-based architectures, which have traditionally been low on general purpose registers. PowerPC systems, for example, don't benefit from running most apps in 64-bit mode, because the register count between 32 bit and 64 bit is identical (32 GPR, 32 FPR). x64 was a sufficient compatibility break that it was deemed possible to add more registers in this mode (although IMO, they didn't go quite far enough).
I think the biggest problem for hardware manufacturers and consumers is that, outside of Apple, Bluetooth often isn't available as an option for most PC buyers. Apple puts it into every laptop and desktop system they sell.
Joe PC User on the other hand, just wants a mouse and keyboard to work, and when they buy wireless, they expect that it will come with everything they need for a wireless experience. For many years now, manufacturers simply ship with a USB-based dongle.
Now as to why that USB dongle isn't Bluetooth, my guesses are a) licensing, and b) drivers. Up until somewhat more recently, Bluetooth on Windows was a serious PITA. Official Windows Bluetooth support didn't appear until XP SP2, and prior to that manufacturers of Bluetooth add-ons had to provide their own drivers. Because they couldn't guarantee for some years what SP level you were at, they continued to ship those drivers. Having the manufacturers drivers and SP2 installed simultaneously was a huge mess -- I remember in 2006 helping a friend setup a Bluetooth headset with Skype on XP SP2, and there was a massive and conflicting mess of OEM drivers and Microsoft's stack that would have sent lesser mortals running for the hills (or at least to the store to return their Bluetooth devices).
Microsoft's late support seems to have driven PC manufacturers to waffle on shipping with built-in Bluetooth, and to try to keep costs down, many still apparently don't (especially outside the portable sector). I've been running Bluetooth mice and keyboards (and other items) for nearly six years now on my Macs -- with standardized support and no driver issues, it's been way easier to sell Bluetooth to the Mac-using public, and that's still the market where you seem to find the majority of consumer-grade Bluetooth devices for PC's aimed towards.
"Everyday developers"? WTF? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.
This project deserved to die.
I agree. I was one of those "everyday developers", and one afternoon quickly put together the first ROT-13 encoder for Ubiquity 0.1 (link) (probably one of the first 20 Ubiquity plug-ins). I added it to their Wiki, and registered it with Ubiquity Herd. I watched it for some time to see the number of people who were using it, and was happy to see a variety of people doing so. It was simple, well debugged, and worked as expected.
Some time later, they upgraded Ubiquity, and required all of the plug-ins to be changed. Not that there was any real notification that it had changed and that my plug-in had to be updated, but having watched it relatively closely, I discovered the update after a week or so, updated my plug-in, and went on my merry way.
At some point later (after some time), I went to check Herd out of curiosity to see how many people were using my plug-in. And you know what? They dropped it from Herd, and replaced it with someone else's ROT-13 encoder plug-in! From that point on, I wanted nothing to do with keeping my plug-in updated. There was no notice to plug-in developers when API changes that required plug-ins to be rewritten were made (and these were made in virtually every single Ubiquity release!), no notice of being dropped off Herd (which was the way most people found plug-ins) or reasons why, nothing.
I did keep it up to date on my personal Firefox install, but you know what? I virtually never used it. I eventually let Firefox drop it when I installed Firefox 3.6. It simply wasn't useful enough. And 99.999% of people out there don't want to type commands to do things. It was always more of a "web hackers tool", and positioning it as anything else was just silly. Couple that with the fact that Ubiquity wasn't particularly friendly to those same "web hackers" (at least it wasn't to this old hacker...) that were writing plug-ins for it, and it was pretty much destined to go nowhere.
So good riddance, I say. Ubiquity promised the moon, but was only ever useful to those who weren't afraid of a command line for 1% of their usual tasks. Hopefully the developers involved in the core project will learn some lessons from it moving forward for their own sake.
The last several times I've flown on Air Canada (over the past several years), the snacks that have been served are frequently either candies (on the really short-run flights, like YYJ YVR), or spicy sesame crackers.
However, one thing to keep in mind -- on International flights, the snacks and foods made available are typically sourced and loaded from the country the flight originates from. I've noticed on all my International flights with Air Canada that the food you get on return to Canada is significantly different from the usual fare they serve when departing from Canada. It is probably in this part of their supply chain that the problem exists.
Apple did. The Airport is the only sane IPv6 CPE for home use at this point. Other devices can be made to behave as well or better, but they need configuration.
Ding! You win the prize!
It can be done exactly as easily, exactly in the same way as current consumer oriented routers do it, but without the NAT part. No net effect on security for Aunt Myrtle. Apple proves it pretty well (I run a set of Airport Extreme/Express units at home myself, with IPv6 tunnelling automatically configured for all clients that support it).
Aunt Myrtle certainly could if her non-NAT IPv6 router came with a stateful firewall that defaulted to allowing no inbound connections, and which could be configured to allow certain ports to be opened specifically for certain machines on her network. No different from how every NAT based consumer router on the market currently works (except without the Native Address Translation part).
What is your thesis? That nobody could design a consumer home router that does this?
Why have a legal battle? Just let the current holders auction off sub-blocks.
You're assuming that the holders of these/8's have been using some sane way in which to assign the IPs within their blocks such that large, contiguous regions are still readily available that make the unused addresses readily routeable. Which, from my experience, they don't. And as the Internet would become nearly unroutable if millions of/31's and/32's suddenly appeared, the only way you could make this work is by having each and every one of those organizations effectively defragment their address use to make large, routable blocks that could be reassigned (e.g.,/24s or/16s) -- and for organizations of the size that we're discussing, the cost of that is going to be way more than they'll be able to charge for those address blocks, and they aren't going to do it, fight or no fight.
You can't take an entity the size of (for example) IBM and have them compress their address use into a/12 to free up 240 new/24's without it being a very significant cost in terms of effort and downtime -- particularly when they have absolutely no incentive to do so. Nobody in their right mind would spend the necessary amount of money to make it worth their time and effort, when they can get millions of addresses in IPv6 for next to nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I'm waiting for my ISP to offer it too, so I can start experimenting with it. I won't use any of the tunneling services because I have a fast connection, so routing the packets trough a longer path than necessary (and this is what would hapen if my Pc decided to use IPv6 instead of v4 to connect to a server that supports both) will reduce my bandwidth, also, I doubt that any of those tunneling services would offer me 80mbps up/down for free.
Good -- more bandwidth for me.
It's a pretty bad scientist who makes conclusions with no experiments. While it would seem somewhat intuitive that tunnelling should increase your route length and somewhat decrease the amount of data stored in each packet, in my experiments tunnelling through the nearest Hurricane Electric servers, I'm actually getting better performance on a number of IPv6 specific sites than I do on the IPv4 versions. Facebook's IPv6 site is one example -- the latency seems to be quite a bit lower than their IPv4 version. I'm assuming this is probably because they have independent IPv6 infrastructure which isn't anywhere as heavily loaded as their IPv4 infrastructure (or they are using HE for their IPv6 connection, or they peer with them in some manner).
Besides which, most Internet traffic is tunnelled at one point or another, and when running dual stack you'll route IPv4 services the same as you do now. Concerns about tunnelling would be valid if you're transferring 100% of your traffic through a tunnel, but I don't think anyone is advocating that you stop all IPv4 traffic on your network today.
Also, my ISP said that they will not be taking the public v4 addresses away, so that's good news too.
in addition, the fact that my computers will have at least 3 IP addresses (one v4, one v6 internal, one v6 external) is not a very appealing thought, I'd rather have NAT for v6 too, but AFAIK nobody offers it, yet.
Why oh why would you want NAT? And why would you care that you have three IP addresses (one of which isn't even routable to the outside world)?
Yaz.
I mean seriously, we do all of this with domain names already, why not IPs?
Because domain names aren't routable.
If there is a shortage in China, you can't just get together a bunch of non-contiguous /24's from Africa, Oceania, and South America and sell them to those who need them in Asia -- routing table sizes would explode, and the Internet would pretty much fall apart. Subnets are aggregated into supernets to aggregate routes, and you can't start busting up the supernets without negatively impacting routability.
So even if you could buy and sell any sized block of IPs, you'd only be able to do so to someone who wanted to use your network provider. If your provider isn't where a potential buyer wants their data and services physically located, then there is no sale. Indeed, anything much lower than a /8 will most probably only be sellable to someone willing to connect to the same upstream provider as you, limiting the sale possibilities immensely. More importantly, as IP address blocks aren't entirely fungible due to the restriction of not being able to reasonably break up supernets, geographical areas with demand won't be able (or even want) to buy from regions where there is supply, doing nothing to alleviate the current IPv4 exhaustion.
Fortunately, the market has responded by making a huge number of IPv6 addresses available.
Yaz.
The main problem with N wifi is I do not have the connection speed to saturate my decade old plain ole 802.11B network. If I upgrade to N, rather than being capped by my provider to max out at about 33% of my network speed, I'll merely run at about 1% of my network speed. Who cares?
Anybody how has more than one host on their home network, and does data transfer between hosts?
I suppose if you only have one machine going out through your network, or if the hosts you do have never inter-communicate (or only do so at a superficial level), then sure -- 802.11b should be sufficient. Then again, so would 10-Base2 Coaxial networking (aka "fun with terminators!").
Personally, 802.11n is the best way to connect to the hosts on my home gigabit network. Not as good as wired (where I have got within 5% of the theoretical maximum throughput between hosts doing large file transfers -- over IPv6 at that), but still really nice for my wireless networked devices (that support it -- I'm looking at the two iPod Touches that necessitate my continuing to run a parallel 802.11g network).
Yaz.
Can it do BOTH WiFi N and WiFi G *at the same time*? If yes, then I might get one... :)
Yes, and you can even run N at 5Ghz and G at 2.4Ghz simultaneously. The latest Airport Extremes have dual independent radios specifically for this use case. Coupled with their IPv6 support (including IPv6 firewalling), IMO the Apple Airport Extreme is the best home wired/wireless router on the market.
Yaz.
And if you go beyond the Apple hype, you would see that by being in control of what goes in the app store, Apple is responsible too to make sure this does not happen.
Wrong, if only because you've ignored the case where a developer may specifically want to permit users to copy their apps to multiple systems (that belong to them or not). If you're releasing a free app, why on earth would you care whether or not the receipt is valid? Wouldn't you want as many people to be able to easily share and run it as possible, thus making checking the registration status moot?
If anything, Apple is doing the opposite of what you're accusing them of. They appear to be taking a hands-off approach to DRM here: if you want it, they've provided a mechanism for it. But if you don't want it, they don't enforce it, and if you do it wrong (as in the Angry Birds case), well, that's the developers fault, and not Apple's. Rovio should have done better QA on this aspect of their app if it was something they were worried about.
Yaz.
Because NAT is perfect for plug-n-play devices with questionable per-device security. Why on earth should consoles and internet-aware appliances at my folks house need a public address? They don't know much about security and getting rid of in-home NAT just exposes them to far more risk.
No, a stateful firewall is what is protecting them, not NAT. Nobody is suggesting that homes will no longer need a "router" device for their computing devices, consoles, media players, and other net-enabled devices to sit behind, which by default block all incoming port requests. That will remain the same. Having a private internal address doesn't fix those less-secure devices -- it's the device at the gateway to your home that permits or denies access. This won't change with IPv6, but you'll be able to have public addresses that are directly routable for those devices that do need them.
(Apple's Airport Extreme has a stateful IPv6 firewall built in, and it's default i a to block everything. It has the same interface to explicitly allow certain ports to certain hosts as for IPv4 with NAT, and does the same job).
Yaz.
As another poster has mentioned, you can turn the iPhone off -- the standard state most customers think of as "off" only really turns off the display.
However, a much easier way of doing the same thing is to just put the iPhone in Airplane mode. That mode disables all of the wireless subsystems at the hardware level, preventing it from being able to "phone home" in any way, shape, or form (I think airlines and various international air transport authorities would have a problem if the iPhone randomly overrode this mode when it felt like it).
Yaz.
I CAN speak for the home users which is what I primarily get my pay from, and the simple fact is there really aren't any friendly IPV6 routers at anywhere near a reasonable price point. As it is now you can get a $30 IPV4 router that is set up FOR home users, simple for them to operate, made for things like streaming media, etc, or you can buy a $100+ SMB router that does NOT have the home features, isn't really made for them, and is overall a bigger PITA with less features that they want/need and more features that they don't.
Or, you could buy an Apple Airport Extreme, which features built-in disk and printer sharing, dual radios, and full IPv6 support, and is made for very easy configuration by any Mac or Windows home user.
No, it's not a $30 device, but you obviously didn't do your research. The Airport Extreme is made for the people you specify, and does feature full IPv6 support. It will even setup a 6to4 tunnel for you if you don't have native IPv6 support from your ISP, and then provide autoconf data to any IPv6 enabled client that connects to it. No NAT, no punching holes for ports -- just plug and play IPv6.
Yaz.
the reply you're looking for is: "correlation does not imply causation", and fairly obvious.
not looking good today canadian theorists.
Really? Did you actually read the paper in question before making such an accusation?
As predicted, there was a significant positive correlation between individuals who scored higher on the NPI-16, the number of times Facebook was checked per day, and the time spent on Facebook per session. This result is consistent with the findings presented in another study that examined narcissism and Facebook activity.
Given these findings, it was hypothesized that narcissists would present a similar opportunity for self-promotion on Facebook. Results partially supported this hypothesis. Significant positive correlations were found between scores on the NPI-16 and self-promotion in the following areas: Main Photo, View Photos (20), Status Updates, and Notes. However, a Pearson correlation analysis failed to show a significant correlation between narcissism and About Me self-promotion.
(Emphasis added).
Indeed, the researcher spends her entire time pointing out in her paper that she found a variety of interesting correlations, and acknowledges the limitations of her research methodology. She doesn't once draw any definitive conclusions that the research means anything.
I'd say it's looking significantly better for Canadian theorists (well, in this case, a student) than it is for armchair /. posters who can't even be bothered to read the research as presented before commenting on it.
Yaz.
Plus, we have no idea how they ranked the narcissism and self-esteem listed in TFA.
You just need to find a better article:
The more prolific the Facebook activity, the lower they rated on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the higher in the Narcissism Personality Inventory.
Or from the published research itself:
After agreeing to participate in this research study, Facebook owners were administered a brief four-part questionnaire. The first section required demographic information, including the participant's age and gender. The second section addressed Facebook activity; it required respondents to indicate the number of times they check their Facebook page per day and the time spent on Facebook per session. The remaining sections assessed two psychological constructs: self-esteem and narcissism.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used to measure participant self-esteem. This 10-item test measured self-esteem using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Example items include “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” The original reliability of this scale is 0.72. This measure has gained acceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity.
Narcissism was assessed using the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI)-16. The NPI-16 is a shorter, unidimensional measure of the NPI-40. While the 40-item measure revealed an =0.84, the NPI-16 has an =0.72. Despite this discrepancy, the two measures are correlated at r=0.90 (p
And now you know.
Yaz.
It'd be really cool to be able to see what sort of huge events were supposed to have happened on a given date according to some TV show, movie, book, or video game.
In 2010, a joint American-Soviet crew will take the Leonov to Jupiter, in order to investigate a strange object orbiting the planet, and to ascertain what happened back in 2001 to the Discovery, whose orbit around Io is deteriorating rapidly.
[Looks at calendar...]
[Checks NASA's website...]
Thanks a lot, you insensitive clod!!!
Yaz.
I really don't see how we are going to allocate 15 /8 netblocks in a single year, when only one has been allocated this year, and only, what, three last year? four?
As pointed out below, your numbers are incorrect. By my count, the IANA has allocated 14 /8's in 2010 (all to RIR's, probably aren't allocating each one to a single entity).
The big problem with your numbers is that the IANA only has to allocate 10 of the 15 remaining /8's to run out. This is because, according to their own policy (http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-remaining-ipv4-space.htm), once they get down to five /8's, they'll give one to each RIR.
The switch to IPv6 is going to become important not when all of the addresses are gone, but when the first RIR has no further addresses to assign. Once the last five /8's get assigned out, that's it -- if an RIR assigns out all of the address space in their last /8, that's it. The IANA will then switch to only assigning IPv6 address blocks (unless someone decides to give back their old Class A network to the IANA. I don't what what their policy would be in that case).
Yaz.
Tell me when you succeed in making a phone call with your iPad, young iPadawan, and let me know how you managed to fit it into your pocket.
While I understand the point you were trying to make, and won't argue that you'd need some pretty massive pockets to carry an iPad in your pants, there are a variety of VoIP apps available for the iPod touch/iPhone/iPad that work just fine. You need the Apple headphones with inline microphone for the iPod touch and iPad, and you may need an account with a SIP provider, but making phone calls from an iPad is hardly difficult or impossible. I haven't tried it on the iPad yet, but I run Fring over Vonage on my iPod touch quite successfully.
Yaz.
Seriously? You live somewhere where the neighbor's power and gas lines go through YOUR yard? Do you not attach to them along a power/gas right-of-way, perhaps in an adjacent alley?
You've obviously never lived on a strata title property.
Not only do all of my neighbours gas lines run through my yard, but I have all of the meters for my row of houses on the back of my house (fortunately, it's only a row of four houses).
Yaz.
I'm thinking of multitasking, a full featured browser, being able to use true software (FLOABT) rather than "apps", the ability to load other operating systems on it, etc.
Microsoft and PC vendors have invented this exact tablet several times over. So why don't you already own one?
Here's the crux for virtually everyone who has ever owned such a device: when you put a PC operating system and PC apps onto a device that is not a PC, you lose all the advantages of being a tablet, with none of the advantages of having an actual PC in front of you. 99.99% of the apps you'll be able to install on it will expect mouse and keyboard input. ISV's won't feel any need nor pressure to bring tablet-related features to their apps, and customers (by-and-large) won't want the tablet because they'll always feel like second-class citizens, trying to shoe-horn in apps that aren't designed with their access needs (or power consumption needs) in mind.
If you want the kind of tablet you're describing, by all means -- go out there and buy one. They've been around for years. Just promise me you'll come back in a month or two and let us know how it's working out for you.
Yaz.
Multimedia operations that are be done in a browser process don't usually benefit from working on big numbers, but they do benefit from crunching lots of smaller numbers at one time. That's what these SIMD extensions do, and a "64-bit" architecture isn't necessary for that.
No, but on Intel architectures they do benefit from the fact that in x64 mode, you have twice as many general purpose registers on chip. More registers means that more data can be kept in the CPU at once, reducing cache hits and speeding up all computation.
64-bit compilers for x64 processors can thus better plan register layout. This can make a noticeable difference for all 64-bit applications (beyond the most trivial cases that wouldn't need to use more than 8 general purpose registers in the first place).
Note that this isn't an intrinsic benefit to 64-bit computing, but more a benefit of 64 bit computing on Intel-based architectures, which have traditionally been low on general purpose registers. PowerPC systems, for example, don't benefit from running most apps in 64-bit mode, because the register count between 32 bit and 64 bit is identical (32 GPR, 32 FPR). x64 was a sufficient compatibility break that it was deemed possible to add more registers in this mode (although IMO, they didn't go quite far enough).
Yaz.
Why not? We've been taking your oil dollars for years!
Not mine. I'm Canadian!
Yaz.
It is easy to drill in a barren desert in a far away land, which is run by religious nuts, where if there is an oil spill, you just don't care.
You said it. Take that, Alberta!
Yaz.
All of Apple's wireless mice and Bluetooth.
I think the biggest problem for hardware manufacturers and consumers is that, outside of Apple, Bluetooth often isn't available as an option for most PC buyers. Apple puts it into every laptop and desktop system they sell.
Joe PC User on the other hand, just wants a mouse and keyboard to work, and when they buy wireless, they expect that it will come with everything they need for a wireless experience. For many years now, manufacturers simply ship with a USB-based dongle.
Now as to why that USB dongle isn't Bluetooth, my guesses are a) licensing, and b) drivers. Up until somewhat more recently, Bluetooth on Windows was a serious PITA. Official Windows Bluetooth support didn't appear until XP SP2, and prior to that manufacturers of Bluetooth add-ons had to provide their own drivers. Because they couldn't guarantee for some years what SP level you were at, they continued to ship those drivers. Having the manufacturers drivers and SP2 installed simultaneously was a huge mess -- I remember in 2006 helping a friend setup a Bluetooth headset with Skype on XP SP2, and there was a massive and conflicting mess of OEM drivers and Microsoft's stack that would have sent lesser mortals running for the hills (or at least to the store to return their Bluetooth devices).
Microsoft's late support seems to have driven PC manufacturers to waffle on shipping with built-in Bluetooth, and to try to keep costs down, many still apparently don't (especially outside the portable sector). I've been running Bluetooth mice and keyboards (and other items) for nearly six years now on my Macs -- with standardized support and no driver issues, it's been way easier to sell Bluetooth to the Mac-using public, and that's still the market where you seem to find the majority of consumer-grade Bluetooth devices for PC's aimed towards.
Yaz.
"Everyday developers"? WTF? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.
This project deserved to die.
I agree. I was one of those "everyday developers", and one afternoon quickly put together the first ROT-13 encoder for Ubiquity 0.1 (link) (probably one of the first 20 Ubiquity plug-ins). I added it to their Wiki, and registered it with Ubiquity Herd. I watched it for some time to see the number of people who were using it, and was happy to see a variety of people doing so. It was simple, well debugged, and worked as expected.
Some time later, they upgraded Ubiquity, and required all of the plug-ins to be changed. Not that there was any real notification that it had changed and that my plug-in had to be updated, but having watched it relatively closely, I discovered the update after a week or so, updated my plug-in, and went on my merry way.
At some point later (after some time), I went to check Herd out of curiosity to see how many people were using my plug-in. And you know what? They dropped it from Herd, and replaced it with someone else's ROT-13 encoder plug-in! From that point on, I wanted nothing to do with keeping my plug-in updated. There was no notice to plug-in developers when API changes that required plug-ins to be rewritten were made (and these were made in virtually every single Ubiquity release!), no notice of being dropped off Herd (which was the way most people found plug-ins) or reasons why, nothing.
I did keep it up to date on my personal Firefox install, but you know what? I virtually never used it. I eventually let Firefox drop it when I installed Firefox 3.6. It simply wasn't useful enough. And 99.999% of people out there don't want to type commands to do things. It was always more of a "web hackers tool", and positioning it as anything else was just silly. Couple that with the fact that Ubiquity wasn't particularly friendly to those same "web hackers" (at least it wasn't to this old hacker...) that were writing plug-ins for it, and it was pretty much destined to go nowhere.
So good riddance, I say. Ubiquity promised the moon, but was only ever useful to those who weren't afraid of a command line for 1% of their usual tasks. Hopefully the developers involved in the core project will learn some lessons from it moving forward for their own sake.
Yaz.
Like almost all US airlines have done.
The last several times I've flown on Air Canada (over the past several years), the snacks that have been served are frequently either candies (on the really short-run flights, like YYJ YVR), or spicy sesame crackers.
However, one thing to keep in mind -- on International flights, the snacks and foods made available are typically sourced and loaded from the country the flight originates from. I've noticed on all my International flights with Air Canada that the food you get on return to Canada is significantly different from the usual fare they serve when departing from Canada. It is probably in this part of their supply chain that the problem exists.
Yaz.
...and information about how Google wants to use music to help humans flip pages.
...you will know it is time to turn the page when Tinkerbell rings her little bells like this...
Yaz.
Apple did. The Airport is the only sane IPv6 CPE for home use at this point. Other devices can be made to behave as well or better, but they need configuration.
Ding! You win the prize!
It can be done exactly as easily, exactly in the same way as current consumer oriented routers do it, but without the NAT part. No net effect on security for Aunt Myrtle. Apple proves it pretty well (I run a set of Airport Extreme/Express units at home myself, with IPv6 tunnelling automatically configured for all clients that support it).
Yaz.
You can. I can. Aunt Myrtle can't.
Aunt Myrtle certainly could if her non-NAT IPv6 router came with a stateful firewall that defaulted to allowing no inbound connections, and which could be configured to allow certain ports to be opened specifically for certain machines on her network. No different from how every NAT based consumer router on the market currently works (except without the Native Address Translation part).
What is your thesis? That nobody could design a consumer home router that does this?
Yaz.
Why have a legal battle? Just let the current holders auction off sub-blocks.
You're assuming that the holders of these /8's have been using some sane way in which to assign the IPs within their blocks such that large, contiguous regions are still readily available that make the unused addresses readily routeable. Which, from my experience, they don't. And as the Internet would become nearly unroutable if millions of /31's and /32's suddenly appeared, the only way you could make this work is by having each and every one of those organizations effectively defragment their address use to make large, routable blocks that could be reassigned (e.g., /24s or /16s) -- and for organizations of the size that we're discussing, the cost of that is going to be way more than they'll be able to charge for those address blocks, and they aren't going to do it, fight or no fight.
You can't take an entity the size of (for example) IBM and have them compress their address use into a /12 to free up 240 new /24's without it being a very significant cost in terms of effort and downtime -- particularly when they have absolutely no incentive to do so. Nobody in their right mind would spend the necessary amount of money to make it worth their time and effort, when they can get millions of addresses in IPv6 for next to nothing.
Yaz.