More likely it means "we don't believe the people who told us this wouldn't work, because we've been doing IPv4 since 1998, so we're going to trial CGN and then once we've been spanked by our pissed-off trial users, we'll deploy IPv6."
The more services run on the same IP addresses, the fewer ports are available for each service. Address sharing is great for small sites that have few hits per day, but is useless for large sites, where a single domain will actually have more outstanding connections than can even be supported by a single network node.
Comcast is delivering IPv6 to end users now. Lots of ISPs in Europe are too. IPv6 deployment is growing in Asia. CGN is expensive and delivers really crappy service—tiling fails on Google maps, sites with lots of AJAX fail in mysterious ways, etc. CGN is the worst of all worlds, and ISPs that put all their eggs in that basket will shrink over time, even if they manage to avoid dying off completely.
What matters is not that every site adopt IPv6, but that enough sites adopt it that having an IPv6 connection gets you useful value. We are already at that point—you can do all your google stuff over IPv6. You can do all your yahoo stuff over IPv6. You can do all your netflix stuff over IPv6. Facebook is fine over IPv6. If you had a v6-only connection, yes, you'd have trouble getting to the long tail. But most of your packets would go over IPv6.
A lot of ISPs that are serious about IPv6 are just counting on attrition to solve this problem. As new customers are added, they get an IPv6 router. Old customers get a new router when they get tired of the problems with the old one. There's no rush.
Most provider sites can make the transition to IPv6 really easily. Chances are their colo facility already offers IPv6; all they have to do is turn it up. It's not trivial—you have to get the DNS right, and get the routing right—but it's pretty easy. Sites that have a harder transition are, by and large, already done with that transition. Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Akamai, all already have working IPv6 networks. If all you have is a web site with a shopping cart or a user forum, switching to IPv6 will take you a week or a month of planning, depending on where you are on the learning curve, followed by about an hour of configuring for the transition from IPv4 to dual-stack.
Not true. The tighter you make the port set that the customer is assigned, the worse their network works. Most interesting web sites open dozens of connections at a time; each of these connections consumes a port. The fewer ports you have, the sooner you notice a problem with this. The more devices get added to the network, the quicker these problems surface. There is no fix for this other than IPv6.
The right way to approach the problem is to deploy an IPv6 network and then do lightweight port-sharing IPv4 over tunnels on the IPv6 network. Then you get IPv4 for legacy applications, and a native IPv6 network. This is cheaper than running an IPv4 network with carrier-grade NAT, because CGN devices are big, hairy and expensive—they have to maintain state for every single IP connection that your customer has.
What's going on here is that somebody high up in the hierarchy at this ISP simply doesn't want to deploy IPv6 because they think the problem is bigger than it is, and they're going to wind up determining that IPv6 deployment is cheaper after they've run this test for a while. IOW, this is really a non-problem—just part of the transition process. It's unfortunate, but completely understandable, that they don't just believe the experts and skip the CGN trial.
This is actually not true. Most NATs can be penetrated from the outside; they have to be able to be penetrated, or things like Skype don't work. Pretty much any UDP-based protocol requires that the NAT open holes. So the notion that NAT == Firewall is utterly incorrect, and in fact the feeling of security that you apparently have based on this misconception is likely to cause you harm in the future.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't useful drugs. But the incentive model is completely wrong; it's no surprise that there are three (that I know of) different versions of Viagra, and no new antibiotics. How many different SSRI drugs? As for chronic pain, there are actually drugs that are quite effective on chronic pain that are illegal, while much more dangerous (but also more lucrative) drugs got FDA approval and can be prescribed.
Come on, man, take a chill pill. Studying epidemiology is useful, and just because the results don't make you comfortable doesn't mean they are wrong, or that the study is an "anti-gun" study.
To a second amendment absolutist, every article on social problems that mentions guns looks like a screed against guns. But this article just mentions guns as one factor that's different in the U.S. than in different countries. It mentions lots of other factors as well. You could as easily call this a screed against obesity, but it's not that either. It's an analysis of a lot of factors, of which guns and obesity are two.
In our fantasies, there's always one answer, that if we could just make it happen, would fix everything. In real life, it's never so simple. In real life, there are a lot of things that need to change. We can talk about root causes, but fixing the root causes is really hard, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to also address the symptoms.
No, we should be banning pharma for profit. A lot of the adverse drug reactions are because pharma companies are pushing drugs that have poorly characterized side effects, because they have a profit incentive to discard studies that show bad side effects, and finish studies that do not, and there's no regulatory regime in place to prevent this. Medical checklists would supposedly also make a big difference.
Having said that, the human species as a whole is capable of addressing more than one problem at once, due to the fact that there is more than one of us. So we can actually address the medical poisoning problem, the other poisoning problem, _and_ the gun problem. We don't have to pick just one.
I don't care how much insecticide is sprayed. I care how much is in the product. And I happen to know that Roundup-ready and Agent-Orange-ready crops result in more toxic crap being sprayed, not less. Certainly if what you proposed were in fact true, that would be something that could be mentioned on the label and might sway me. But not telling me is not something I'm okay with.
Right, the scum who self-evidently need to be shot are very cheap to kill. The problem is that there aren't any of those. What there are are defendants. Defendants may or may not have committed the crime. Evidence has to be presented. The jury has to be convinced. Then there is an appeals process, because a lot of death penalty cases are actually prosecuted against people who aren't guilty, and there are often errors at trial, and it would be wrong to kill an innocent person ("it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer").
Keeping someone incarcerated until they die of natural causes is a lot cheaper than prosecuting a long appeals process. And it means that when it later turns out that someone else did the crime, you don't have a dead innocent on your conscience.
Yup, because when the authorities frame people and then later get caught, they almost always get punished, and the victims exonerated. Oh wait, no, that's not what happens...
Yup, the Nexus 7 won't do as a computer replacement, but it's quite a nice machine for a lot of what you'd do on a computer. I think the Nexus 10 might do quite nicely. No command line, of course, so if that's a deal breaker, don't get it, but otherwise it's very nice—I prefer it to my iPad at this point.
The path to win is radical transparency. GMO-producing companies want to prevent their products from being labeled as GMO products, because people won't buy them. This is a legitimate concern, but may be motivated by a legitimate concern as well: the product may have been genetically engineered to be harmful. Instead of making GMO labeling illegal, which it is in many cases now, make it more detailed, so that I can see the difference between GMO that I'm fine with, and GMO that I'm not fine with.
E.g., I never want to buy a GMO product with built-in insecticides or herbicide resistance (I don't care about the herbicide resistance per se, just the fact that any such product was no doubt heavily sprayed with herbicides). I also never want to buy a GMO product that contains suicide genes. And I never want to buy a GMO product that is patented by any company that is willing to sue a farmer for patent infringement, even if the product is otherwise winning.
If you have a GMO vegetable that doesn't fall into any of these categories, I have NO PROBLEM buying it. But that's tough, because right now I pretty much have to avoid anything that isn't labeled organic if I want to avoid the types of GMO I object to, and even that isn't a guarantee. So if someone comes out with a GMO product that I would in principle buy, I won't in practice buy it.
This is true in principle, but not in practice. The more times you install a particular windows license, the more of a pain in the ass Microsoft makes it for you, on the theory that you are probably pirating it, not just installing it serially on new machines and wiping it from the old ones.
They are behind bars as the result of an illegal drug search by civilians, followed by collusion with some cops. No doubt in the end justice will be served, and the family will move to Amish country and renounce most technology invented after 1850.
So what are you using for your strawberries now? We need to set up some supplemental grow lighting so we can grow tomatoes and bok choi, and we've been having trouble figuring out what lights to buy. There's also the concern about whether the lights have a bad power factor—some go as low as 50%.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely it means "we don't believe the people who told us this wouldn't work, because we've been doing IPv4 since 1998, so we're going to trial CGN and then once we've been spanked by our pissed-off trial users, we'll deploy IPv6."
The more services run on the same IP addresses, the fewer ports are available for each service. Address sharing is great for small sites that have few hits per day, but is useless for large sites, where a single domain will actually have more outstanding connections than can even be supported by a single network node.
Comcast is delivering IPv6 to end users now. Lots of ISPs in Europe are too. IPv6 deployment is growing in Asia. CGN is expensive and delivers really crappy service—tiling fails on Google maps, sites with lots of AJAX fail in mysterious ways, etc. CGN is the worst of all worlds, and ISPs that put all their eggs in that basket will shrink over time, even if they manage to avoid dying off completely.
What matters is not that every site adopt IPv6, but that enough sites adopt it that having an IPv6 connection gets you useful value. We are already at that point—you can do all your google stuff over IPv6. You can do all your yahoo stuff over IPv6. You can do all your netflix stuff over IPv6. Facebook is fine over IPv6. If you had a v6-only connection, yes, you'd have trouble getting to the long tail. But most of your packets would go over IPv6.
A lot of ISPs that are serious about IPv6 are just counting on attrition to solve this problem. As new customers are added, they get an IPv6 router. Old customers get a new router when they get tired of the problems with the old one. There's no rush.
Most provider sites can make the transition to IPv6 really easily. Chances are their colo facility already offers IPv6; all they have to do is turn it up. It's not trivial—you have to get the DNS right, and get the routing right—but it's pretty easy. Sites that have a harder transition are, by and large, already done with that transition. Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Akamai, all already have working IPv6 networks. If all you have is a web site with a shopping cart or a user forum, switching to IPv6 will take you a week or a month of planning, depending on where you are on the learning curve, followed by about an hour of configuring for the transition from IPv4 to dual-stack.
Not true. The tighter you make the port set that the customer is assigned, the worse their network works. Most interesting web sites open dozens of connections at a time; each of these connections consumes a port. The fewer ports you have, the sooner you notice a problem with this. The more devices get added to the network, the quicker these problems surface. There is no fix for this other than IPv6.
The right way to approach the problem is to deploy an IPv6 network and then do lightweight port-sharing IPv4 over tunnels on the IPv6 network. Then you get IPv4 for legacy applications, and a native IPv6 network. This is cheaper than running an IPv4 network with carrier-grade NAT, because CGN devices are big, hairy and expensive—they have to maintain state for every single IP connection that your customer has.
What's going on here is that somebody high up in the hierarchy at this ISP simply doesn't want to deploy IPv6 because they think the problem is bigger than it is, and they're going to wind up determining that IPv6 deployment is cheaper after they've run this test for a while. IOW, this is really a non-problem—just part of the transition process. It's unfortunate, but completely understandable, that they don't just believe the experts and skip the CGN trial.
No. Firewall != Router != Network Address Translater. But often all three functions sit in the same box.
This is actually not true. Most NATs can be penetrated from the outside; they have to be able to be penetrated, or things like Skype don't work. Pretty much any UDP-based protocol requires that the NAT open holes. So the notion that NAT == Firewall is utterly incorrect, and in fact the feeling of security that you apparently have based on this misconception is likely to cause you harm in the future.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't useful drugs. But the incentive model is completely wrong; it's no surprise that there are three (that I know of) different versions of Viagra, and no new antibiotics. How many different SSRI drugs? As for chronic pain, there are actually drugs that are quite effective on chronic pain that are illegal, while much more dangerous (but also more lucrative) drugs got FDA approval and can be prescribed.
Come on, man, take a chill pill. Studying epidemiology is useful, and just because the results don't make you comfortable doesn't mean they are wrong, or that the study is an "anti-gun" study.
To a second amendment absolutist, every article on social problems that mentions guns looks like a screed against guns. But this article just mentions guns as one factor that's different in the U.S. than in different countries. It mentions lots of other factors as well. You could as easily call this a screed against obesity, but it's not that either. It's an analysis of a lot of factors, of which guns and obesity are two.
Yay! Life here is better than in Ethiopia! Win!!!!1!111
In our fantasies, there's always one answer, that if we could just make it happen, would fix everything. In real life, it's never so simple. In real life, there are a lot of things that need to change. We can talk about root causes, but fixing the root causes is really hard, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to also address the symptoms.
No, we should be banning pharma for profit. A lot of the adverse drug reactions are because pharma companies are pushing drugs that have poorly characterized side effects, because they have a profit incentive to discard studies that show bad side effects, and finish studies that do not, and there's no regulatory regime in place to prevent this. Medical checklists would supposedly also make a big difference.
Having said that, the human species as a whole is capable of addressing more than one problem at once, due to the fact that there is more than one of us. So we can actually address the medical poisoning problem, the other poisoning problem, _and_ the gun problem. We don't have to pick just one.
I don't care how much insecticide is sprayed. I care how much is in the product. And I happen to know that Roundup-ready and Agent-Orange-ready crops result in more toxic crap being sprayed, not less. Certainly if what you proposed were in fact true, that would be something that could be mentioned on the label and might sway me. But not telling me is not something I'm okay with.
Right, the scum who self-evidently need to be shot are very cheap to kill. The problem is that there aren't any of those. What there are are defendants. Defendants may or may not have committed the crime. Evidence has to be presented. The jury has to be convinced. Then there is an appeals process, because a lot of death penalty cases are actually prosecuted against people who aren't guilty, and there are often errors at trial, and it would be wrong to kill an innocent person ("it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer").
Keeping someone incarcerated until they die of natural causes is a lot cheaper than prosecuting a long appeals process. And it means that when it later turns out that someone else did the crime, you don't have a dead innocent on your conscience.
Yup, because when the authorities frame people and then later get caught, they almost always get punished, and the victims exonerated. Oh wait, no, that's not what happens...
Apparently irony is not your strong suit, sonny-boy.
Yup, the Nexus 7 won't do as a computer replacement, but it's quite a nice machine for a lot of what you'd do on a computer. I think the Nexus 10 might do quite nicely. No command line, of course, so if that's a deal breaker, don't get it, but otherwise it's very nice—I prefer it to my iPad at this point.
I have an apple bluetooth keyboard that is really great to type on. I wouldn't want a tablet without one.
The path to win is radical transparency. GMO-producing companies want to prevent their products from being labeled as GMO products, because people won't buy them. This is a legitimate concern, but may be motivated by a legitimate concern as well: the product may have been genetically engineered to be harmful. Instead of making GMO labeling illegal, which it is in many cases now, make it more detailed, so that I can see the difference between GMO that I'm fine with, and GMO that I'm not fine with.
E.g., I never want to buy a GMO product with built-in insecticides or herbicide resistance (I don't care about the herbicide resistance per se, just the fact that any such product was no doubt heavily sprayed with herbicides). I also never want to buy a GMO product that contains suicide genes. And I never want to buy a GMO product that is patented by any company that is willing to sue a farmer for patent infringement, even if the product is otherwise winning.
If you have a GMO vegetable that doesn't fall into any of these categories, I have NO PROBLEM buying it. But that's tough, because right now I pretty much have to avoid anything that isn't labeled organic if I want to avoid the types of GMO I object to, and even that isn't a guarantee. So if someone comes out with a GMO product that I would in principle buy, I won't in practice buy it.
This is true in principle, but not in practice. The more times you install a particular windows license, the more of a pain in the ass Microsoft makes it for you, on the theory that you are probably pirating it, not just installing it serially on new machines and wiping it from the old ones.
They are behind bars as the result of an illegal drug search by civilians, followed by collusion with some cops. No doubt in the end justice will be served, and the family will move to Amish country and renounce most technology invented after 1850.
So what are you using for your strawberries now? We need to set up some supplemental grow lighting so we can grow tomatoes and bok choi, and we've been having trouble figuring out what lights to buy. There's also the concern about whether the lights have a bad power factor—some go as low as 50%.
Cree fixtures produce a really good color spectrum. They are pretty much the company to beat on this.