"Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit..."
Every video store had Betamax tapes. V6 has been shoved down their throats. They don't particularly like it.
"I'm sorry but it is too late for this shit. The world IS moving on to IPv6 out of necessity with or without you."
The world hasn't even heard of it for the most part.
Point is, V6 isn't an extension to the net, it's an entirely separate parallel network. Some people are going to migrate over to it, but the vasy majority have absolutely no reason to.
An if you think commercial carriers are going to shut off V4 service to paying customers you have another thing coming.
There's major cognitive dissonence going on here with the "V6 is wonderful!" crowd. Consider: last years "V6 test" day caused problems with V4 transit. In fact the link from HE to ISC was cut in the middle of it so V4 would work again. The probems began at the beginnin of v6 test days and ended when it was over.
Now, because this was done under the aegis of ISOC/IETF it was sanctioned. But if somebofy else had done it and caused the same problems, well, Kashpureff went to prison for far far far far far less.
Look for yourself, the internet weather report has all the details. I saved a copy if they don't have it any more.
"Internet people don't think U.S. laws apply to them when they go to other countries. Also, history has shown that anything done in concert with the ISOC is viewed as a mission from God."
" Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth " - J.F.K
Look at the address map again. See all those bits "reserved by IANA" - that's an artificial scarcity. There's isn't even a IANA any more. If the right poeple want to use them, they'll get used.
Yeah they'd like that. They can sell you addresses all over again. And the money ends up helping the guys that publish these "recommendations". Nice little ecosystem.
In the real world if you haven't heard of V6 your email and web still work fine and always will over v4,
""Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, says that public skepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus. He says that without public support, it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change."
Hansen has been known to lie. But you don't need to believe him to know all pollution is bad.
What's worse is blind emphasis on carbon. Look at Fukushima and the Gulf and tell me carbon is the planets biggest worry.
Keep in mind the person that started all this was Eugene Kashpureff who ran around in the mid 1990s trying to sell brand name top level domains to big business. The powers that be thought this was a horrific idea and over the next 15 years captured the whole thing so a bunch of old white guys ran it then did the exact same thing, but it just costs 15X more an they get the money now.
If nothing else it serves as a great example of what happens when government takes over technology and all future technology need to keep this in mind so it can never happen again.
And keep in mind it was ISOC (the Internet Society) that handed this to the government while all along saying it was "for the good of the net" and never mind they made hundreds of millions by doing this.
The amount of carbon in the air right now is stupid small to what it was when plants evolved and there does not exist a plant that can't handle 10 or perhaps even 100 the carbon in the atmosphere right now.
No offense, but I don't think you know anything about this stuff. I'll listen though if you think you do: convince me.
"No, because the multiple predictions are not random, the way thrown darts are. This is Science 101. Multiple models are proposed to explain and/or predict an observable phenomenon. The model that makes the the most accurate predictions gains credence over the others."
Why have we spent a zillion dollars to come to the same conclusion then?
What if they were guessing?
You can say all those predictions about flying cars were true too, cause they're here now and the truth is only a little bent.
Kinda like this. And this is the first year we've noticed the model working is it?
Anybody who has seen both Sean Doran's brilliant screed "It Seeks Overall Control" and watched the IAHC committee where ISOC made the deal with the devil for control of the DNS which it then presented to the USG as the final solution, can not be surprised at this.
After the US government threatened to make Jon Postel "go away" for his ideas about expanding the DNS to make NSI "one of many" registires (instead of the current plan to have 10,000 sales agents for.com) per the original NSF cooperative agreement with NSI/General Atomics/ATT, the USG (really Commerce) made their own version of IANA run by intellectual property lawyers, starting at the top with WIPO from Geneva being involved in the earliest secret (!) meetings about the DNS delivered on a platter by ISOC; this was initiated when Don Heath (ISOC) ran into Albert Tramposch (WIPO) and Bob Shaw (ITU) at an OECD workshop in Ottawa at about the time Jon was trying to expand the DNS namespace around the time the Vint Cerf's FNCAC advised the NSF to instruct NSI to began charging for domains.
ISOC, and really any of these organizations that start with an "I" are really a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" old boys club - look at their salaries on their organizations tax forms, they're 2 to 5 times for equivalent government work and lets face it if you saw FCC staffers in kayaks at a five star hotel Costa Rica claiming it was "bottom up multistakeholder consensus making" - one of four junkets a year - heads would roll and never mind the FCC has stated the multistakeholder model is rubbish.
But how else can they let the intellectual property crowd and speculators have as much as a say as all those people that actually own and operate nameservers?
You forgot Mark William's C - or was that just Z-80, I don't remember.
At any rate, GCC owes a lot to DECUS C which was donated to DECUS (the Digital Users Group, digital as in PDP-11 digital) by David G. Conroy who wrote the compiler for Dec's RSX11M operating system. He did this when he was at the University of Waterloo and finished it at Teklogix in Mississauga where he and I both worked.
I was the second or third person to use it. Here's a picture of me an Dave at the Teklogix picnic in Terra Cotta. This must have been about 78. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2011/Feb/9/
Sometime in the very early 90s I ftp'd into John Gilmore's toad.com for a reason I can't remember now, but it was something to do with this. GCC was suppose to be a clean rewrite but I'd looked at the early source and has seen "DGC" signed comments. So in my mind GCC is, or is at least part derived from Dave's compiler that I used so many years ago.
I'd take it a lot more seriously if they'd outlined a nice big cascading set of biochemical events that happened because aspirin was introduced, but they don't and don't have a clue how it works or really if it works at all.
It seems odd to me because nasis block the cox2 reaction which produces prostoglandins which reduce inflammation which causes cancer. So I'd expect any antagonist of this reaction to increase, not decrease cancer morbidity.
First, I can't imagine there'd be one, there ought to be a dozen or maybe a hundred. Second, they'd be pretty high up and over populated areas. You're not gonna be shooting bullets, shells or missiles over Antwerp or Kuching.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a whole bunch of these things out there, here's more: http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/free_online_college_courses/
The #1 priority for ICANN is "stability of the global internet"
100K ?
Some asshole if probably working on a free version right now.
Keep looking.
"Every major ISP and content provider in the US is in the process of testing IPv6 for deployment. Asia is going batshit..."
Every video store had Betamax tapes. V6 has been shoved down their throats. They don't particularly like it.
"I'm sorry but it is too late for this shit. The world IS moving on to IPv6 out of necessity with or without you."
The world hasn't even heard of it for the most part.
Point is, V6 isn't an extension to the net, it's an entirely separate parallel network. Some people are going to migrate over to it, but the vasy majority have absolutely no reason to.
An if you think commercial carriers are going to shut off V4 service to paying customers you have another thing coming.
"It is an ADDRESSING issue."
Gosh, you don't say.
And it only works over thick wire.
Don't scrimp on that crimping tool!
Pro: "Then all you need to do is turn on privacy SLAAC addresses"
Con: you buy a laptop set up for V6 and find out some pedo had it last and the mac address portion of V6 hasn't changed.
Good luck with that.
There's major cognitive dissonence going on here with the "V6 is wonderful!" crowd. Consider: last years "V6 test" day caused problems with V4 transit. In fact the link from HE to ISC was cut in the middle of it so V4 would work again. The probems began at the beginnin of v6 test days and ended when it was over.
Now, because this was done under the aegis of ISOC/IETF it was sanctioned. But if somebofy else had done it and caused the same problems, well, Kashpureff went to prison for far far far far far less.
Look for yourself, the internet weather report has all the details. I saved a copy if they don't have it any more.
"Internet people don't think U.S. laws apply to them when they go to other countries. Also, history has shown that anything done in concert with the ISOC is viewed as a mission from God."
" Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth " - J.F.K
Look at the address map again. See all those bits "reserved by IANA" - that's an artificial scarcity. There's isn't even a IANA any more. If the right poeple want to use them, they'll get used.
Spot on! "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes" https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6540
Yeah they'd like that. They can sell you addresses all over again. And the money ends up helping the guys that publish these "recommendations". Nice little ecosystem.
In the real world if you haven't heard of V6 your email and web still work fine and always will over v4,
Bingo.
"Every host is *SUPPOSED* to be addressable."
Uh, that was pre Cantor and Siegal. That way lies madness now.
V6 is Betamax and will never be adopted.
Some other really clever protocol will pop up and gain widespread commercial acceptance. It will not come from the IETF.
Mark my words.
""Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, says that public skepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus. He says that without public support, it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change."
Hansen has been known to lie. But you don't need to believe him to know all pollution is bad.
What's worse is blind emphasis on carbon. Look at Fukushima and the Gulf and tell me carbon is the planets biggest worry.
Keep in mind the person that started all this was Eugene Kashpureff who ran around in the mid 1990s trying to sell brand name top level domains to big business. The powers that be thought this was a horrific idea and over the next 15 years captured the whole thing so a bunch of old white guys ran it then did the exact same thing, but it just costs 15X more an they get the money now.
If nothing else it serves as a great example of what happens when government takes over technology and all future technology need to keep this in mind so it can never happen again.
And keep in mind it was ISOC (the Internet Society) that handed this to the government while all along saying it was "for the good of the net" and never mind they made hundreds of millions by doing this.
Also, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/18/science/carbon-dioxide-rise-may-alter-plant-life-researchers-say.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
The amount of carbon in the air right now is stupid small to what it was when plants evolved and there does not exist a plant that can't handle 10 or perhaps even 100 the carbon in the atmosphere right now.
No offense, but I don't think you know anything about this stuff. I'll listen though if you think you do: convince me.
Wrong link. And I don't see where it says what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum#Scientific_applications
What am I missing?
"Oh not this horseshit again. There was never a "Global Cooling" frenzy."
Google thinks there was. If you'd been there you'd remember it.
https://www.google.com/search?x=0&y=0&pg=q&fmt=.&q=%22global+cooling+frenzy%22
"No, because the multiple predictions are not random, the way thrown darts are. This is Science 101. Multiple models are proposed to explain and/or predict an observable phenomenon. The model that makes the the most accurate predictions gains credence over the others."
Why have we spent a zillion dollars to come to the same conclusion then?
What if they were guessing?
You can say all those predictions about flying cars were true too, cause they're here now and the truth is only a little bent.
Kinda like this. And this is the first year we've noticed the model working is it?
don't use consumer drives if you're concerned.
see also http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/archive/disk_failures.pdf
The Goog wrote a nice paper on hard drives.
Anybody who has seen both Sean Doran's brilliant screed "It Seeks Overall Control" and watched the IAHC committee where ISOC made the deal with the devil for control of the DNS which it then presented to the USG as the final solution, can not be surprised at this.
After the US government threatened to make Jon Postel "go away" for his ideas about expanding the DNS to make NSI "one of many" registires (instead of the current plan to have 10,000 sales agents for .com) per the original NSF cooperative agreement with NSI/General Atomics/ATT, the USG (really Commerce) made their own version of IANA run by intellectual property lawyers, starting at the top with WIPO from Geneva being involved in the earliest secret (!) meetings about the DNS delivered on a platter by ISOC; this was initiated when Don Heath (ISOC) ran into Albert Tramposch (WIPO) and Bob Shaw (ITU) at an OECD workshop in Ottawa at about the time Jon was trying to expand the DNS namespace around the time the Vint Cerf's FNCAC advised the NSF to instruct NSI to began charging for domains.
ISOC, and really any of these organizations that start with an "I" are really a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" old boys club - look at their salaries on their organizations tax forms, they're 2 to 5 times for equivalent government work and lets face it if you saw FCC staffers in kayaks at a five star hotel Costa Rica claiming it was "bottom up multistakeholder consensus making" - one of four junkets a year - heads would roll and never mind the FCC has stated the multistakeholder model is rubbish.
But how else can they let the intellectual property crowd and speculators have as much as a say as all those people that actually own and operate nameservers?
You forgot Mark William's C - or was that just Z-80, I don't remember.
At any rate, GCC owes a lot to DECUS C which was donated to DECUS (the Digital Users Group, digital as in PDP-11 digital) by David G. Conroy who wrote the compiler for Dec's RSX11M operating system. He did this when he was at the University of Waterloo and finished it at Teklogix in Mississauga where he and I both worked.
I was the second or third person to use it. Here's a picture of me an Dave at the Teklogix picnic in Terra Cotta. This must have been about 78. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2011/Feb/9/
Sometime in the very early 90s I ftp'd into John Gilmore's toad.com for a reason I can't remember now, but it was something to do with this. GCC was suppose to be a clean rewrite but I'd looked at the early source and has seen "DGC" signed comments. So in my mind GCC is, or is at least part derived from Dave's compiler that I used so many years ago.
I'd take it a lot more seriously if they'd outlined a nice big cascading set of biochemical events that happened because aspirin was introduced, but they don't and don't have a clue how it works or really if it works at all.
It seems odd to me because nasis block the cox2 reaction which produces prostoglandins which reduce inflammation which causes cancer. So I'd expect any antagonist of this reaction to increase, not decrease cancer morbidity.
How do you keep the helium balloon from being blown around by the winds? If you can't do that, you can't keep it over international waters."
Quadracopter. They can fly through windows sideways, keeping a balloon in place isn't rocket science.
First, I can't imagine there'd be one, there ought to be a dozen or maybe a hundred. Second, they'd be pretty high up and over populated areas. You're not gonna be shooting bullets, shells or missiles over Antwerp or Kuching.