The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything.... I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights.
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Let me get this straight. There is one country that has nukes and uses them as a deterence because all of the other countries surrounding it have said that they will destroy the first country if they could. The deterence has been 100% successful and stability has been achieved. Yet, according to you, it will become even MORE stable when the countries that irrationally want to destroy the other, when it gets nukes. You're actually proposing that irrational, ignorant masses, run by zealots, who for their entire life, have been brainwashed by both their culture and religion, should get nukes. Countries like Iran are the modern day, post WW-I Germany of their day. Only an absolute idiot would want to puts nukes in Hitler's hands.
Are you a friggen moron! I can only, sincerely, hope that you were trolling and that you don't truly believe what you said. If you do, sincerely buy into the BS you posted, then let's face it, you are a proven moron. Furthermore, should Iran gets nukes, I encourage you to go live in Israel. That way, then it vaporaizes, the world will be a better place when you're gone.
Well sound. While I have not read the rest of the comments...yet, in this thread, I suspect it's someone telling you that you're wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong and people are truly not that dumb......let's hope so!:)
I think there are two different, conflictive, references for this; which is probably where your ex-partner got it from. I read it in one of my OS/2 books I had in the day, and it has always stuck in my head. Everytime I post this tidbit, someone comes back with a reference from a MS Press book. Realistically, we'll probably never know. In the book I read, this was one of the fracturing design decisions that made such bad will between MS and IBM on the OS/2 project. According to what I read, shortly after this was implemented, MS left for NT-land.
You are right, there was no reason for IBM not to have fixed it in version 2.0. That fact falls squarely on IBM.
Rail gun launchers are a bad idea without strapping additional rockets and fuel to the craft, and then it becomes, essentially, just a slightly more efficient rocket.
We have a winner! Perhaps you should learn to read. Then, re-read my post! Then figure out why your worthless ramblings should make you blush. The only thing that has any value in your post is the part that I quoted above. And that, is EXACTLY the ENTIRE point! Trivializing a good idea doesn't exactly make you appear smarter either.
Consider building a railgun as lightweight as you can with low acceleration at the equator. Loop it around the world twice. Now stand it on it's end. That's your beanstalk with electromagnetic propulsion to get things into orbit - big isn't it?
Let us know when you stop dreaming of bean stalks ad come back to planet Earth. Seriously, you're a bafoon! The intent is not to DIRECTLY launch something into orbit soley by energy imparted by rail gun. Period. Only an idiot would put a ROCKET on a rail gun and never use the damn rocket once it was in the air. And what good is a rocket in orbit if the fuel it carries is never used. Damn you're dense!
I've friggen spelled it out for you in previous posts! The SOLE purpose of the rail gun is to get the rocket at a higher altitude with a nice bit of energy, thusly REDUCING the requirements for both onboard fuel and thrust. Which in turn, in theory, can allow the rocket to be made of lighter materials, which in turn, allows for reduced fuel and thrust requirements to make it to orbit. Period. Best of all, a railgun is reusable. All of which makes launching cheaper and safer (rocket ignited in air and not on ground)...in the long run.
The rest of your minless ramblings can be safely ignored. Period.
Enjoy your beans!...and no, I'm not interested in a cow...
Let's say you wanted to replace the shuttle launch system. Well, you can't launch something into orbit directly using a railgun. The velocity is just way too high.
You're WAAAAAYYYYY out in left field. Thusly, we can safely ignore most of your post. The intent, as clearly indicated in previous posts, is not to launch something directly into orbit via rail gun. Period. This is why your ramblings about impossible this...can't be done....causes more problems...ect...is wacky. Period. The intent is to allow the ROCKET to have a large amount of engergy BEFORE the rockets ever ignite. Thusly, saving fuel and weight in the rocket. Period.
Bluntly, only an idiot would assume that it's better to carry more weight, which requires more thrust, which requires more fuel, which causes more weight...repeat as needed...is better than a system which adds enegy to the rocket without the rocket having to take it with it....and yet, you're seemingly jumping up and down about it.
Frankly, you're the first person I've *ever* heard say this is a bad idea...and yes, I've actually heard rocket scientists...and read articles about the concept and research...talk about it being an excellent idea if they can address the complexity of issues associated with the rail system. So which should I listen to? Some guy that's clearly in left field on/. or rocket scientists? Hmmm....
which the rocket would rest on.
Which hopefully you will return to...after all, we are talking about Earth and not some airless planet. Let us know when you're back home.
This is a given. No one is saying it will all magically work. Frankly, I'm really not sure what you're point is. Using something like a rail gun has huge advantages which can potentially reduce the weight, complexity, and thrust requirements for rockets to reach orbit.
Everything has fundamental constraints...rocket's today have, "fundamental constraints"....so once again, I'm really not sure what you're point is.
Based on your comments, I get the impression that you picture an electromagetic cannon rather than a sled (which the rocket would rest on) on several miles of track, eventually terminating upright on a massive, man-made hill. No bones about it, it's not an easily solution to achieve. If it were, these rail systems would long sense have been in use. Having said that, the potential is great, contrary to the odd assertions you're putting forward.
Why didn't you just use it to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and use that?
Use that how? As a rocket? I guess you could but it's probably an even worse return; which you seemingly agree on. Besides, improved safety is only of the other tangibles of the rail approach. With controlled exposions, there's always risk. Moving that father away is even better...and conceptually, a rail launch can be aborted before the rocket is lit, should something be detected at that state.
Plus, the amount of thrust required to lift an entire rocket is rather large.
Again, that's exactly why people get excited about a rail gun launcher. I wish I could remember the numbers but if you can get a rocket, by rail, to something like 10k of altitude, you save something like 25%-30% of the required fuel. Please don't hold me to those exact numbers, but it gives you an idea.
That was my first impression when I heard about it. MySQL, like MS, has so-so technology but excellent marketing. As such, they have mind share. It's always a good move for one company to purchase another company that has pre-existing market and mind share. Especially if that same company has been erroding your existing base with said shares.
You spend renewable energy on the rail gun to get your rocket higher up where a, it now how momentum, thusly requiring the rocket to generate less energy to reach orbit, and b, less fuel is required by the rocket as it only has to power its self from a high altitude rather than sea level.
With any luck, rail guns will some day prove a viable alternate technology to raw rocket thrust, sea level to orbit.
You've stepped in it now! It's only a matter of time before a MySQL zealot, preaching Wikipedia as a reference, which is something like 98% read only, containing a few....what million?...records, is a serious database. Which proves how MySQL is the king of RDBMS. Never mind that this is MySQL's sole strength...it's sweet spot... In the meantime, we'll ignore the fact that anyone that's done much with large and complex databases are laughing...but that's a different matter.
You've been warned! Prepare to duck!
Frankly, MySQL users are justifiably tired of being reminded that they picked an overhyped dog of an RDBMS and they will do just abou anything to assure their egos remain unbruised. It's not like you can really blame them. MySQL, as a company, has spread so much complete BS about PostgreSQL and even more BS about how great MySQL is, it's hard to debate the topic. You can always tell when someone is spewing the MySQL party line because it's always the same misinformation and complete BS.
Here is a list of the common party BS lines:
o PostgreSQL does not have replication. This is of course false. In fact, you have your ready choice of replication options; including commerically supported implementations.
o Replication for PostgreSQL is complicated, inflexible, and painful to set up. This is, of course false. Replication can be set up in about 10-20 minutes, depending on your skillset and capabilities.
o PostgreSQL is slow. This is of course false. Having said that, PostgreSQL may not be the fastest tool for every solution but it scales wonderfully. PostgreSQL's query optimizer, compared to MySQL's, is lasers versus clubs.
o PostgreSQL is not stable. This is of course, false. This may of been true a decade ago. Realistically, even crappy biased (in MySQL's favor) tests which have attempted to compare the two are often unable to complete their tests with MySQL because it crashes or simply becomes completely unresponsive. MySQL is both unstable and scales poorly compared to just about any other well established RDBMS.
o PostgreSQL is lacking key SQL features like MySQL. This is, of course, completely false! It is MySQL which is lacking many ANSI SQL features. In fact, like most of proprietary SQL vendors, they make every attempt to push their own lock-in extentions rather than support standard ANSI SQL.
o Oh, let's not forget the classic... I've seen a website which is mostly read only run via MySQL, therefore, it's the best RDBMS ever created!
This could go on and on and on...but you get the point.
Summary: MySQL is used by the ignorant masses swayed by marketing hype and lies propagated by MySQL.
You've stepped in it now! It's only a matter of time before a MySQL zealot, preaching Wikipedia as a reference, which is something like 98% read only, containing a few....what million?...records, is a serious database. Which proves how MySQL is the king of RDBMS. Never mind that this is MySQL's sole strength...it's sweet spot... In the meantime, we'll ignore the fact that anyone that's done much with large and complex databases are laughing...but that's a different matter.
Thank you. They've been screwing us since Mid December. I had assumed this was what they were doing. I just wrote a nasty email yesterday so your timing today is wonderful! I plan on asking for a partial refund.
I've even been considering a partial charge back since the account is paid via credit card. I've been trying to figure out if they is somehow federal fraud since they are blaming the USPO while in breach of contract. Somehow, I don't think it is...but would love to have a club to hang over their head.
Wrong...it's called the start of an ice age. Perhaps you've heard of something called an ice age? Believe it or not, change of seasons still occur even during an ice age. Since you obviously are clueless, it's well accepted that the event which captured the mommoths in ice was the onset of an ice age. Sure...it probalby was the start of winter...it was the friggen start of the ice age that caught them off guard and caused everything to freeze so rapidly. When is the last time you saw a flower frozen during the summer time? Exactly...and yet there still stands your mamoths and frozer flowers in full bloom.
Full bloom? How can that be? That's because the ice age came on so fast...fall was pretty much skipped...full bore from summer to colder than a white bear's butt in zero flat... Get over it...it's well known rapid CLIMATE changes can occur. You're confusing climate TRENDS with client EVENTS! Like it or not, shrug your ignorance and accept that rapid CLIMATE changes have happened MANY times in the past.
Furhtermore, no one knows exactly what will happen with the poles shift (which is happening NOW)...and it has happened countless times before. It's very possible that there is a relationship between the poles changing and rapid climate change.
And yet mammoths froze standing up with food still in the stomache in vast, vast areas. And yet, flowers froze while still in bloom. Nope...everything that has every happened on earth, climate wise, is known to take thousands of years. Ya right...
I'm feeling pretty good when I say that that flowers don't stay in bloom for thousands of years at a time and mommonths don't take thousands of years to digest large quanities of lush vegitation. Simple fact is, there is more evidence that suggests periodically, VERY, VERY, VERY drastic climate changes can take place in spans of weeks, if not days or hours.
What are you trying to do, educated the ignorant that have already made up their mind?? Come on! Everyone knows that just because IPv6 will fix many things that are currently broken with IPv4, there is no reason to use it because it threatens the ignorant masses which have fallen in love with the kludge known as NAT.
You think just because IPv6 will help fight spam, prevent and/or track DOS/DDOS, make it more difficult for scanning viruses to find its next victim, open the door for push technologies to "just work", allow people to readily run their own servers, and enabled a gambit of both older and newer technologies to "just work" (CORBA, SIP, etc) accross the Internet, you have valid cause to educate the ignorant that dumbly believe IPv6 is a solution looking for a problem?
How dare you!
Oh, let's not tell anyone that a transition from IPv4 to IPv6 would be a small boon to the enconomy and open the door for next generation of internet innovation, further fueling the enconomy. We all know that would be bad...so keep it under your hat.
Actually, the XBox360 is MS' attempt while in dire straights. MS' console effort has been losing money for a long time. They only thing they've had going for them is an excellent online experience (ala Xbox Live). Sony was and still is the incumbent. The fact that Sony is finally pushing forward with its massive online plans is really cause for MS to seriously be concerned...not the other way around.
Realistically, if MS doesn't start making serious bucks back on their console investment, they'll have a hard time even justifying staying in the market at all (console...not games...just to be clear). Sony, on the other hand, has a long track record of success after success after success. No bones about it, Sony is absolutely still the incumbent. The addition of a good online experience may actually be a nail in MS' console-confin. While I doubt that will be the case, Sony is the one with the big club here.
I completely disagree. IPv6 is a solution to many problems...it's just that lazy people are happy to accept the status quo and the many short commings of current infrastructure. IPv6 is a solution to many current issues and adds lots to boot. What it's lacking is mind share, which is often prevented by commnets like yours. Simple fact is, many of the scourges of the net could be much better addressed with IPv6...but I guess the ignorant ney-sayers are too busy pushing their own BS to figure out what solutions it actually can solve or realize that the Internet is a fairly hostile place with IPv4.
Nah...you're right...the Internet is a much better place with DOS attacks, DDOS attacks, spam, and explosive network viruses which can rapidly scan networks to further propagate.
Slashdot Mirror
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. ... I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights.
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain
I'm so glad someone rated you troll!
Let me get this straight. There is one country that has nukes and uses them as a deterence because all of the other countries surrounding it have said that they will destroy the first country if they could. The deterence has been 100% successful and stability has been achieved. Yet, according to you, it will become even MORE stable when the countries that irrationally want to destroy the other, when it gets nukes. You're actually proposing that irrational, ignorant masses, run by zealots, who for their entire life, have been brainwashed by both their culture and religion, should get nukes. Countries like Iran are the modern day, post WW-I Germany of their day. Only an absolute idiot would want to puts nukes in Hitler's hands.
Are you a friggen moron! I can only, sincerely, hope that you were trolling and that you don't truly believe what you said. If you do, sincerely buy into the BS you posted, then let's face it, you are a proven moron. Furthermore, should Iran gets nukes, I encourage you to go live in Israel. That way, then it vaporaizes, the world will be a better place when you're gone.
Well sound. While I have not read the rest of the comments...yet, in this thread, I suspect it's someone telling you that you're wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong and people are truly not that dumb... ...let's hope so! :)
I think there are two different, conflictive, references for this; which is probably where your ex-partner got it from. I read it in one of my OS/2 books I had in the day, and it has always stuck in my head. Everytime I post this tidbit, someone comes back with a reference from a MS Press book. Realistically, we'll probably never know. In the book I read, this was one of the fracturing design decisions that made such bad will between MS and IBM on the OS/2 project. According to what I read, shortly after this was implemented, MS left for NT-land.
You are right, there was no reason for IBM not to have fixed it in version 2.0. That fact falls squarely on IBM.
single message queue that IBM designed in PM, was one of the worst technical design decisions ever made.
Agreed, but it was MS that imposed that design decision, not IBM.
Rail gun launchers are a bad idea without strapping additional rockets and fuel to the craft, and then it becomes, essentially, just a slightly more efficient rocket.
We have a winner! Perhaps you should learn to read. Then, re-read my post! Then figure out why your worthless ramblings should make you blush. The only thing that has any value in your post is the part that I quoted above. And that, is EXACTLY the ENTIRE point! Trivializing a good idea doesn't exactly make you appear smarter either.
Consider building a railgun as lightweight as you can with low acceleration at the equator. Loop it around the world twice. Now stand it on it's end. That's your beanstalk with electromagnetic propulsion to get things into orbit - big isn't it?
...and no, I'm not interested in a cow...
Let us know when you stop dreaming of bean stalks ad come back to planet Earth. Seriously, you're a bafoon! The intent is not to DIRECTLY launch something into orbit soley by energy imparted by rail gun. Period. Only an idiot would put a ROCKET on a rail gun and never use the damn rocket once it was in the air. And what good is a rocket in orbit if the fuel it carries is never used. Damn you're dense!
I've friggen spelled it out for you in previous posts! The SOLE purpose of the rail gun is to get the rocket at a higher altitude with a nice bit of energy, thusly REDUCING the requirements for both onboard fuel and thrust. Which in turn, in theory, can allow the rocket to be made of lighter materials, which in turn, allows for reduced fuel and thrust requirements to make it to orbit. Period. Best of all, a railgun is reusable. All of which makes launching cheaper and safer (rocket ignited in air and not on ground)...in the long run.
The rest of your minless ramblings can be safely ignored. Period.
Enjoy your beans!
Let's say you wanted to replace the shuttle launch system. Well, you can't launch something into orbit directly using a railgun. The velocity is just way too high.
/. or rocket scientists? Hmmm....
You're WAAAAAYYYYY out in left field. Thusly, we can safely ignore most of your post. The intent, as clearly indicated in previous posts, is not to launch something directly into orbit via rail gun. Period. This is why your ramblings about impossible this...can't be done....causes more problems...ect...is wacky. Period. The intent is to allow the ROCKET to have a large amount of engergy BEFORE the rockets ever ignite. Thusly, saving fuel and weight in the rocket. Period.
Bluntly, only an idiot would assume that it's better to carry more weight, which requires more thrust, which requires more fuel, which causes more weight...repeat as needed...is better than a system which adds enegy to the rocket without the rocket having to take it with it....and yet, you're seemingly jumping up and down about it.
Frankly, you're the first person I've *ever* heard say this is a bad idea...and yes, I've actually heard rocket scientists...and read articles about the concept and research...talk about it being an excellent idea if they can address the complexity of issues associated with the rail system. So which should I listen to? Some guy that's clearly in left field on
which the rocket would rest on.
Which hopefully you will return to...after all, we are talking about Earth and not some airless planet. Let us know when you're back home.
This is a given. No one is saying it will all magically work. Frankly, I'm really not sure what you're point is. Using something like a rail gun has huge advantages which can potentially reduce the weight, complexity, and thrust requirements for rockets to reach orbit.
Everything has fundamental constraints...rocket's today have, "fundamental constraints"....so once again, I'm really not sure what you're point is.
Based on your comments, I get the impression that you picture an electromagetic cannon rather than a sled (which the rocket would rest on) on several miles of track, eventually terminating upright on a massive, man-made hill. No bones about it, it's not an easily solution to achieve. If it were, these rail systems would long sense have been in use. Having said that, the potential is great, contrary to the odd assertions you're putting forward.
No is asking for "arbitrarily high trust" from a rail gun...well, save only you.
Why didn't you just use it to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and use that?
Use that how? As a rocket? I guess you could but it's probably an even worse return; which you seemingly agree on. Besides, improved safety is only of the other tangibles of the rail approach. With controlled exposions, there's always risk. Moving that father away is even better...and conceptually, a rail launch can be aborted before the rocket is lit, should something be detected at that state.
Plus, the amount of thrust required to lift an entire rocket is rather large.
Again, that's exactly why people get excited about a rail gun launcher. I wish I could remember the numbers but if you can get a rocket, by rail, to something like 10k of altitude, you save something like 25%-30% of the required fuel. Please don't hold me to those exact numbers, but it gives you an idea.
That was my first impression when I heard about it. MySQL, like MS, has so-so technology but excellent marketing. As such, they have mind share. It's always a good move for one company to purchase another company that has pre-existing market and mind share. Especially if that same company has been erroding your existing base with said shares.
That's exactly why railguns have so much hope!
You spend renewable energy on the rail gun to get your rocket higher up where a, it now how momentum, thusly requiring the rocket to generate less energy to reach orbit, and b, less fuel is required by the rocket as it only has to power its self from a high altitude rather than sea level.
With any luck, rail guns will some day prove a viable alternate technology to raw rocket thrust, sea level to orbit.
You've been warned! Prepare to duck!
Frankly, MySQL users are justifiably tired of being reminded that they picked an overhyped dog of an RDBMS and they will do just abou anything to assure their egos remain unbruised. It's not like you can really blame them. MySQL, as a company, has spread so much complete BS about PostgreSQL and even more BS about how great MySQL is, it's hard to debate the topic. You can always tell when someone is spewing the MySQL party line because it's always the same misinformation and complete BS.
Here is a list of the common party BS lines:
o PostgreSQL does not have replication. This is of course false. In fact, you have your ready choice of replication options; including commerically supported implementations.
o Replication for PostgreSQL is complicated, inflexible, and painful to set up. This is, of course false. Replication can be set up in about 10-20 minutes, depending on your skillset and capabilities.
o PostgreSQL is slow. This is of course false. Having said that, PostgreSQL may not be the fastest tool for every solution but it scales wonderfully. PostgreSQL's query optimizer, compared to MySQL's, is lasers versus clubs.
o PostgreSQL is not stable. This is of course, false. This may of been true a decade ago. Realistically, even crappy biased (in MySQL's favor) tests which have attempted to compare the two are often unable to complete their tests with MySQL because it crashes or simply becomes completely unresponsive. MySQL is both unstable and scales poorly compared to just about any other well established RDBMS.
o PostgreSQL is lacking key SQL features like MySQL. This is, of course, completely false! It is MySQL which is lacking many ANSI SQL features. In fact, like most of proprietary SQL vendors, they make every attempt to push their own lock-in extentions rather than support standard ANSI SQL.
o Oh, let's not forget the classic... I've seen a website which is mostly read only run via MySQL, therefore, it's the best RDBMS ever created!
This could go on and on and on...but you get the point.
Summary:
MySQL is used by the ignorant masses swayed by marketing hype and lies propagated by MySQL.
It turns out he was both, having a wet dream and dreaming of another RDBMS.
Move along...nothing to see here...move along...
You've stepped in it now! It's only a matter of time before a MySQL zealot, preaching Wikipedia as a reference, which is something like 98% read only, containing a few ....what million?...records, is a serious database. Which proves how MySQL is the king of RDBMS. Never mind that this is MySQL's sole strength...it's sweet spot... In the meantime, we'll ignore the fact that anyone that's done much with large and complex databases are laughing...but that's a different matter.
You've been warned! Prepare to duck!
It's called fraud! Period.
Thank you. They've been screwing us since Mid December. I had assumed this was what they were doing. I just wrote a nasty email yesterday so your timing today is wonderful! I plan on asking for a partial refund.
I've even been considering a partial charge back since the account is paid via credit card. I've been trying to figure out if they is somehow federal fraud since they are blaming the USPO while in breach of contract. Somehow, I don't think it is...but would love to have a club to hang over their head.
Since when is the start of an ice age considered local? Local ice age? Guess it's possible...but I've never heard anyone call an "ice age" local.
Wrong...it's called the start of an ice age. Perhaps you've heard of something called an ice age? Believe it or not, change of seasons still occur even during an ice age. Since you obviously are clueless, it's well accepted that the event which captured the mommoths in ice was the onset of an ice age. Sure...it probalby was the start of winter...it was the friggen start of the ice age that caught them off guard and caused everything to freeze so rapidly. When is the last time you saw a flower frozen during the summer time? Exactly...and yet there still stands your mamoths and frozer flowers in full bloom.
Full bloom? How can that be? That's because the ice age came on so fast...fall was pretty much skipped...full bore from summer to colder than a white bear's butt in zero flat... Get over it...it's well known rapid CLIMATE changes can occur. You're confusing climate TRENDS with client EVENTS! Like it or not, shrug your ignorance and accept that rapid CLIMATE changes have happened MANY times in the past.
Furhtermore, no one knows exactly what will happen with the poles shift (which is happening NOW)...and it has happened countless times before. It's very possible that there is a relationship between the poles changing and rapid climate change.
Wrong...it's called the start of an ice age. Perhaps you've heard of something called an ice age?
No wonder there are so many confused loons...people have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to this topic...fear mongering rules!
Sure glad the last several ice ages....err...winters...so you can follow along, were so short and mild. Doh!
And yet mammoths froze standing up with food still in the stomache in vast, vast areas. And yet, flowers froze while still in bloom. Nope...everything that has every happened on earth, climate wise, is known to take thousands of years. Ya right...
I'm feeling pretty good when I say that that flowers don't stay in bloom for thousands of years at a time and mommonths don't take thousands of years to digest large quanities of lush vegitation. Simple fact is, there is more evidence that suggests periodically, VERY, VERY, VERY drastic climate changes can take place in spans of weeks, if not days or hours.
What are you trying to do, educated the ignorant that have already made up their mind?? Come on! Everyone knows that just because IPv6 will fix many things that are currently broken with IPv4, there is no reason to use it because it threatens the ignorant masses which have fallen in love with the kludge known as NAT.
You think just because IPv6 will help fight spam, prevent and/or track DOS/DDOS, make it more difficult for scanning viruses to find its next victim, open the door for push technologies to "just work", allow people to readily run their own servers, and enabled a gambit of both older and newer technologies to "just work" (CORBA, SIP, etc) accross the Internet, you have valid cause to educate the ignorant that dumbly believe IPv6 is a solution looking for a problem?
How dare you!
Oh, let's not tell anyone that a transition from IPv4 to IPv6 would be a small boon to the enconomy and open the door for next generation of internet innovation, further fueling the enconomy. We all know that would be bad...so keep it under your hat.
Actually, the XBox360 is MS' attempt while in dire straights. MS' console effort has been losing money for a long time. They only thing they've had going for them is an excellent online experience (ala Xbox Live). Sony was and still is the incumbent. The fact that Sony is finally pushing forward with its massive online plans is really cause for MS to seriously be concerned...not the other way around.
Realistically, if MS doesn't start making serious bucks back on their console investment, they'll have a hard time even justifying staying in the market at all (console...not games...just to be clear). Sony, on the other hand, has a long track record of success after success after success. No bones about it, Sony is absolutely still the incumbent. The addition of a good online experience may actually be a nail in MS' console-confin. While I doubt that will be the case, Sony is the one with the big club here.
So please, stop with the revisionist history.
Pv6 is a solution looking for a problem,
I completely disagree. IPv6 is a solution to many problems...it's just that lazy people are happy to accept the status quo and the many short commings of current infrastructure. IPv6 is a solution to many current issues and adds lots to boot. What it's lacking is mind share, which is often prevented by commnets like yours. Simple fact is, many of the scourges of the net could be much better addressed with IPv6...but I guess the ignorant ney-sayers are too busy pushing their own BS to figure out what solutions it actually can solve or realize that the Internet is a fairly hostile place with IPv4.
Nah...you're right...the Internet is a much better place with DOS attacks, DDOS attacks, spam, and explosive network viruses which can rapidly scan networks to further propagate.