I think you missed the point entirely. It's not that XP doesn't support it, I even said so in my first post. It's that you have to install it to make it support it and even then there is no DHCPv6 client for it without yet another install. Then of course there is autoconfig which you alluded to which gets a little fuzzy when you have multiple routers all with Internet connections. DHCP isn't going anywhere.
The only legitimate problem you posed was VPN access. Otherwise, QoS and multicasting I can already do with my IPv4 network so I don't gain anything by changing my infrastructure which was the whole point of my post.
My point was simply that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem for the vast majority of users. I'm not going to say that nobody uses UPnP especially in the business world but most don't as it's unnecessary when you have proxies doing the work for you. Instead of scripts exploiting IPv4 addressing there will be scripts to read the advertisements and take over the router which is shouting its address on the network.
There is nothing compelling about IPv6 for the majority of us. The only reason I'm even considering it now is because at some point I'm going to have to so I'd rather be ready before I have to be.
Of course all of this is on top of the fact that the majority of layer 3 switches out there don't support IPv6 without firmware updates if updates are even available without having to pay for them. Cisco, I'm looking at you. Switches take a long time to die too. You'll have to forgive those of us that have working IPv4 deployments for not wanting to introduce new infrastructure for the sake of IPv6. Most of my network printers don't support IPv6 and never will. None of my security cameras, card swipe machines, credit card machines, and a myriad of other devices. With so many devices out there not supporting it yet I'd have to maintain the same IPv4 infrastructure while adding IPv6 infrastructure. You're right that I can run most of them side by side but again, it's adding variables to a network that is already running fine.
And then there are those of us managing hundreds and thousands of devices that don't support IPv6. Windows XP is one of the most popular operating systems on the planet and you have to add IPv6 support to default installs of it which the vast majority of machines out there are. The problems aren't show-stoppers, there are just a lot of problems with migrating to IPv6 on any scale. Top it off with the fact that there aren't really any benefits for the majority of us that don't have current problems with NAT and you can't really blame people for not wanting to give up something they've known for a great many years that has proven reliable in the majority of environments.
I don't need me printer to have an Internet addressable IP. I don't even need my home workstation to. It solves a problem most people don't have. For those with NAT issues then yes, the transition makes a lot of sense. For those without current layer 3 problems it just doesn't make sense to go through all the effort involved in fundamentally modifying your infrastructure.
Most people do not want that option though. Allow more machines to have more services in an age when companies are fighting the P2P battle and other desktop apps trying to reduce what end users are capable of. They aren't trying to add more. If you run lots of VOIP you install a PBX on your network and use it as a proxy to the outside world. This gives you the benefit of monitoring the calls which most businesses actually like.
Now home users would be okay with this but it's the same story for them. Their router will be given an IPv6 address and then tunnel all the IPv4 traffic since a lot of old hardware and software won't support IPv6.
I can already do multiple machines. I have 32 IPv4 addresses that my firewall will forward traffic accordingly to internal servers. In short, I gain nothing by going to IPv6. Autoconfig seems like a good idea but most people hate magic protocols and are going to opt for DHCPv6 so they can control who gets what addressing on which subnet.
I'll go IPv6 in my virtual environments first until I'm happy with all the services for end-users. Until then, why go through all the effort when you don't have to?
While I agree with your premise for internal networking you fail to understand what the parent was referring to with 4.2.2.1 or in my case 4.2.2.2 and a bunch of other Internet addresses that are commonly used during the diagnostic process. Remembering an internal subnet is easy, nevermind the fact that I run about 20 VLANs with different subnets on each one. My whole topology changes when I switch to IPv6. Expect a lot of resistance to this change when it affects everything on your network at a fundamental level.
To most of us, the idea of subnetting internal addresses spaces makes a lot of sense as it is an easy way to control who has access to what at a layer 3 level. With IPv6 and a single subnet, you now have to rely on Intranet based gigabit firewalls to keep everything locked down. In my network, you're on your VLAN and if you change your subnet to try to gain access to a server you won't get anywhere. This is besides the fact that only the newest layer 3 switches even support IPv6 routing. Many many businesses run switching and routing gear until it dies and the vast majority of it doesn't support IPv6. On top of that, most even brand new printers don't come with IPv6 support and all my security cameras are in the same boat. Yes you can run IPv4 tunnels but that means you have to maintain both IPv6 and IPv4 infrastructures until everything catches up. There is no smooth transition to IPv6 for any company of size. Tiny shops can get by probably pretty easily as they don't have lots of bandwidth considerations. My load balancers and firewalls also don't support IPv6 and they are less than two years old. I will grant that there is a firmware version I can install for the firewall to get IPv6 but the balancer is screwed.
Bottom line, expect a lot of resistance to this change as it is the biggest change since going from token ring to Ethernet. Combined with the fact that many people were taught IPv4 in networking classes and have had no exposure at all to IPv6 you get a whole lot of experienced professionals that now feel like noobs.
Change can be good, but right now NAT works fine for the majority of us so there is no compelling reason to change to IPv6.
Except that hotels make no guarantees about this particular service so you will lose the lawsuit every time. Much like what happens if your car gets broken into in the hotel parking lot. Most hotels would rather do what they can to appease you though as they'd prefer happy guests over mad guests. I did IT for a company that had 7 hotels. I saw this kind of crap all the time with guests coming up with any excuse in the book to get their room for free or to rack up discounts to get a better room. I know of a guest that put a bunch of food in her garbage in her hotel room room at Mandalay Bay. She waited for it to smell bad, then placed it outside her door and called the front desk to complain about the smell in the hallway so that they would be put her up in The Hotel which has much nicer rooms.
As I said, this happens all the time. In short, you should rely on yourself to meet your schedule as only you are to blame for missing your flight. Same thing would happen if your cab broke down. They will most likely do their best to get you where you need to go, but if it is beyond their ability to fix and they decide you're not being reasonable they have plenty of solid legal ground. Too many people think you can sue of every little thing that happens and the sad reality is that far too many cases make it to the judge when they are obviously frivolous.
Bandwidth gets cheaper the more you have it. I can tell you that all the business accounts with these same providers have SLA agreements involving bandwidth and uptime which means that can't oversell that much. Then you also have companies like IO Data which don't oversell. They actually buy more bandwidth and more power than required to prevent problems such as these. They make plenty of money too.
The reality is that they aren't expanding capacity. I put on a traveling show so I can speak from a little person experience on this. 3 years ago I had a show in Florida and I wanted a DSL line for it. They gave me a 6meg pipe. I wasn't happy as that was slower than I can get in rural parts of Vermont let alone the urban area that is Palm Beach. Well, last year I went to order more DSL lines since they don't offer faster DSL service yet and all they could offer me were 3meg circuits to the same damned location!
Another example here in Scottsdale. I provided a fiber circuit for gigabit Internet to the premises knowing that I only needed 50meg at the time. 2 years later the max they can provide me is 80meg which admittedly you still need a gigabit interface for. Bottom line is that most ISPs are trimming important parts of their business to save money and make a bigger profit. This has put the majority of them in bad positions to provide us with the service we desire. It also keeps our costs up since upgrading after the fact is still mighty pricey since they only do it when they actually have to they lose the economy of scale since they are only buying 2 100k routers instead of 200 or 2000. In short, they suffer from the same short-sightedness as the rest of corporate America and instead of fixing the cause of the problem they only want to take steps to mitigate the problems at the cost of service and higher premiums. DPI is always going to cost more than simple routing.
Why would the servers get turned off? I doubt Microsoft or Sony are going anywhere anytime soon. In the age where everything can just be a VM there's no reason to shut off servers entirely. When you upgrade to your new hardware you just migrate to the VM and then it's just a file on a SAN somewhere. Unless Microsoft or Sony go out of business this will be perpetual as the costs of maintaining are practically negligible. If the product is EOL then there is likely to be far less demand on the servers so you just keep it in a VM for availability of the remaining few who still play.
You're whole argument is circular. Clearly you haven't thought it through. You say yourself that if there were no illegal immigrants then conditions would improve as citizens would have recourse against abusive practices. They can sue their employers and pay taxes. They contribute to society. So what do you gain out of excluding 10 million people from this system? You really think 20% unemployment is caused by Mexicans doing my yardwork for half the price that a white person would charge? I'm sorry, that's competition and his costs are clearly lower than yours. This idea that Americans are entitled to jobs that time and time again they have shown they don't want is ridiculous and needs to go away.
If you want to make good money, you have to do it better, faster, and cheaper than the other guy. In other words, you have to compete. This is why America became an economic power house and a sense of entitlement isn't going to accomplish anything.
You say crime is up because of illegal immigrants? You say we should get rid of 10 million people that are already in our borders. I'm sorry but you seem to be completely out of touch with reality. There is simply no way you're going to get rid of even a significant portion of this number. 10 million people could enrich our culture, 10 million people could add to our tax base which is coincidentally suffering right now especially in Arizona. These 10 million are already here, already paying sales tax but they can't contribute because we won't let them. These 10 million people could be living much better lives if we weren't persecuting them so thoroughly. Why are the American people afraid of immigrants? Why do we treat people from other countries like they are criminals? This isn't how we should behave and it only fuels those people that hate us now.
Of course this happens with every population explosion of one type or another. The Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese people endured a lot of hardship when they migrated here. Same with Irish, the Italians, let's not forget our black population. All of these groups had limited rights initially until people smartened up and realized that the American dream should be realized by anyone willing to work hard to achieve their goals. There are people who won't work hard too, they are Americans and immigrants alike. Do you spend your time turning us into a police state? Or do you embrace the ideals on which this country was founded?
I'll never understand this argument. Have you ever heard of China town? Or little Italy? Immigrants take a few generations to assimilate to their new country. I live in Arizona and this idea of "illegal" immigration I find offensive to the very core of what America stands for. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave. We accept all walks of life, any creed, anyone willing to work to make a living which is the American dream.
When did America become so xenophobic? If it wasn't for open immigration almost none of us would be here today, why do we now condemn it? What is gained by not providing a path to citizenship for anyone that is in our country?
You simply can't enforce the borders or immigration laws without turning the border into a militarized zone and as someone that routinely goes to Mexico for vacation fun I don't support this. I even grew up in VT on the border to Canada driving up to Montreal for some fun nights too. This is good for everyone. We can and should help each other. Helping the world is how the U.S. got to become a super power. We should be good neighbors and not treat people from other countries like criminals. This does no one any good.
My vision sucks, lenses are very expensive everywhere you go and represent the majority of the cost. Contacts are quite expensive too as a result. Paying large out of pocket sums is not something unique to my situation as almost everyone I know is in similar situations. For me it would have been $800 for all of that so I still got a heavy discount and buying frames that you would wear out in public usually results in paying more than $10. So I'll agree the large cost has a lot to do with my personal preferences. The bottom line is that it is cheaper for me to just not have vision insurance given how crappy the coverage is. Sure it's only $14/month but I haven't gotten glasses in 10 years and that was only because I needed new ones so that I can get Lasik since you can't wear contacts before you get the surgery. I hate wearing glasses though, the lack of peripheral vision drives me nuts.
You're right, spectrum licensing should be based on usage and paid every year in much smaller amounts of course. This isn't in the interests of the large telcos though so don't expect it to ever happen. You have any idea how much spectrum they license and just sit on? It's amazing that it's been allowed especially given heavy tax payer subsidies to these same exact companies.
I've heard this misleading figure a number of times and I wonder why you use it. If 70% of the people like what they have which isn't my experience given that I just paid $400 for new glasses and contact lenses with an eye exam while having vision insurance then I don't think this would be the issue that it is.
You're number doesn't include the 40 million Americans that have no coverage at all along with the 10 million+ non-citizens taking into account the numbers are rising rapidly too. How do you discount 1/10th of the entire population of the country and make a statement that 70% like their insurance? Where does this number even come from? What was the question that was asked?
There is no reason that MRI machines cost millions at this point, everything in the healthcare industry is so overpriced because insurance companies pay it happily passing on the premium. There is no recourse so it pretty much has to be this way unless there are some fundamental rules changed which is what everyone is trying to do right now. The whole malpractice situation is retarded too and sue happy Americans are largely to blade for all the bureaucracy created to protect everyone from lawsuits. Hospitals need the machines which are overpriced and so they have to pass on the costs to insurance providers. Hospitals have to pay high salaries to practitioners because of malpractice insurance and all that leads to the person receiving the health-care who will go bankrupt without the right health-care. 60% of bankruptcy is caused by health problems.
A similar situation exists for all telecom. We gave them billions to setup infrastructure and they setup proprietary environments and squandered all of the money so we are left with a substandard deployment for all telephony and Internet to the curb. The problem is the lack of oversight in regards to this money. The companies grew irresponsibly and you can't expect them to just give all the money back as that would bankrupt the majority putting even more people out of jobs so you end up in a place where we pay $99/month for unlimited calling and texting (sort of) and some Internet which you can't use too much or you will be cut off. Bottom line is that for much of the 20th century America had most of the money and didn't use it properly so welcome to our new world where we have to compete with a rebuilt Europe, a China that understands a little capitalism goes a long way, and a crippling oil crisis on the horizon which you just happened to have based a large chunk of your economy with the basis of cheap gas.
I'm not blaming anyone for all of this except for perhaps our representatives in the house and senate combined with a voting populous that seems to like to vote for people that clearly don't support legislation that will help them out with the most responsibility being a short-sighted voting populous. I hope this changes in the future as a new generation grows up dealing with the problems created by the baby boomer generation. Of course new problems will emerge, hopefully we can hold on to our principles.
In the meantime, charging long distance rates and 40 cents per text without a plan will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. Regardless of costs being practically negligible at this point. On the plus side, I'll keep enjoying those chicks you mentioned, they sure are nice to look at. I don't think there will be any shortage of them either given what I see on a night out in Arizona.
How do you register your vehicle to a living trust? The whole reason for registering your vehicle in the first place is to inform ADOT of who is responsible for the vehicle in question. If the picture shows you in the picture you will lose in court as it doesn't matter who the car is registered to, only that you were driving it.
You really need to keep up with the changes to the system as you will likely end up driving without a license. Did you also know that most license plate covers don't even work? They worked against older systems but not the newer ones.
Tickets issued recently are paid in much higher percentages as you get a process server showing up at your door now.
These days process servers will indeed show up at your door for cameras and you do automatically lose your license for not showing up in court. Friend of mine ignored them as you have and got pulled over in Phoenix for driving without a license.
In my experience sysadmins and developers have a symbiotic relationship as you most likely didn't program that operating system that your web service runs on.
Just yesterday our developer and myself had to come up with a deployment strategy that had to allow for some funky activity that most security mechanisms wouldn't allow. So we came up with a solution that actually made our environment more secure while allowing him to deploy his service. Without me he'd never be able to publish the application that the entire company uses and without my backups protecting us from data-loss there would be no need for the application. Without the developer there would be no database to support nor application so we need each other. As a result, he defers to me for sysadmin stuff and I defer to him for debugging and it works out rather nicely. We'll even have beers together without the need for the special day.
In my mind sysadmins are only unappreciated by those that don't know anything about computers or technology. This group of people is rapidly shrinking because people that do have computer skills can do their jobs a lot faster and much more efficiently. They understand my position and feel free to chat me up about problems they are experiencing knowing that I'll take it under advisement and take care of it as soon as I can. It doesn't have to be adversarial. The only people I consistently have problems with are marketing people because they aren't concerned with real metrics. They would rather take hit counts from my site because it shows in the billions neglecting the much more accurate and thus much more likely to generate repeat customers visitor count. My visitor count is in the millions so it's not a bad figure to work with either and it's much more honest. They look at us like we don't make any money for the company neglecting the fact that building an environment that can sustain heavy traffic is what got them the numbers to work in the first place. Few other people make that mistake and realize that if the servers aren't running no money gets made and in return we recognize that our servers would have nothing to do if the sales guys weren't doing their jobs, and the guest services people weren't doing theirs. When you're part of the same company it should be viewed as being on the same team. Too many work environments allow departmental rivalries that only serve to make a company inefficient.
You're knee-jerk reactions aren't any better than their knee-jerk reactions. The reality is that increasing populations force increases in emergency room spending, building hospitals, schools, fire departments, police departments, light rail, other mass transit, and of course 1/3rd of the state is national park while another 1/3rd is reservation.
While I agree spending increased too fast I understand why it happened. Reacting to population growth costs more than preparing for it as any city planner can tell you. One hundred mini-malls are substantially more expensive than one big mall for instance.
Their actions are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. I'll agree this leasing option is a terrible idea but only because there is no will both of politicians and of AZ residents to increase taxes which let's face it, have to be raised. I still pay less in taxes here than I did when I lived in VT and both areas are growing consistently.
Fixed red light cameras should be cut. They consistently are money losers here in AZ which is why they get installed and last about year before being taken down. All that trenching for nothing. Then of course they can't even send the tickets to the right court which was great when I got a ticket since the judge threw it out for going to the wrong court.
Beyond that there really isn't a lot of spending as far as I can tell. I could be wrong though. The issue appears to be a simple need to increase taxes and a reactive populous that isn't willing to cooperate.
Closest answer I have to that is here. As of 2004 it's gone up 30% since 2000 and the growth rate hasn't slowed as far as I can see given that I've lived here since 2001. That might help explain why the government has increased its spending so drastically. I don't see a lot of frivolous programs here, only cities that are grappling with rapid sustained growth.
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
This thread is quite therapeutic for me. I run into the exact same stuff all the time. The blind spot deal particularly bothers me because one of the main lessons they teach you at Bondurant and it applies to Nascar as well as street driving is that braking to avoid a collision is almost never the right move and that changing lanes to avoid collision is far likely to work out better for you given that braking hard usually just results in you getting rear-ended instead of rear-ending the person in front of you.
I've also noticed that most people don't use their mirrors for some reason, particularly the side mirrors preferring to turn their entire bodies instead causing them to swerve. Keep track of the cars around you people! It's not that hard to pay attention. That way when something unexpected happens you know that the lane next to you has room for you or if there is no such condition you can adjust your speed accordingly to create such a condition. Of course never slow down past a certain point depending on the speed of traffic.
Many studies have shown that the speed limit doesn't dramatically effect traffic fatalities, it's the difference in speed that travelers are going that causes the most problems which is why it's recommended that most roads have their speed limit set to whatever speed 80% of the drivers are naturally going. There will always be speed demons and slow pokes but make the speed limit something realistic!
I think you completely missed the point of my post. To preserve our way of life means to preserve our quality of life and I should have been more specific.
To preserve our way of life we have to use more sustainable technologies because what we're doing now cannot continue forever meaning that at some point if we don't do anything we will be either destroyed or severely limited so we have to take action to slow the heating by reducing what we're doing to heat up the planet.
Why? You're DNS servers are clustered and load balanced right? rrright? Those of us that need our infrastructure up don't think twice about rebooting even during the day! A golden age we live in indeed when I can just take the server out of the load balancer rotation, apply updates, perform reboot rest, and then put it back into rotation repeating the steps for all servers in the cluster.
9/11 called, they want their planes in the air. You're not seriously discounting that humans impact temperature are you? I live in Phoenix and even the weatherman goes on tv and comfortably states the blatantly obvious that all this concrete pavement does indeed increase temperatures. This is why the city is so much warmer than the rest of the desert. Man kind has an serious impact on it's environment no matter how much you wish to believe that we don't.
You need to understand that the Earth doesn't care if we live or die, it will go on spawning more life as it always has. The Earth heats up on its own and cools down on its own. The difference is that humans are now messing with the Earth to a large enough extend that it will probably swing more wildly from one extreme to the other as far as temperatures go. We're on our way up, we can either act to slow it down, or ride the wave and let millions die when storms get stronger and stronger and droughts force more and more to starve to death. Humans will survive, our way of life however will be greatly impacted.
No one can state when the massive changes will occur so there's no need to panic and destroy economies but we need to act to preserve our way of life.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the point entirely. It's not that XP doesn't support it, I even said so in my first post. It's that you have to install it to make it support it and even then there is no DHCPv6 client for it without yet another install. Then of course there is autoconfig which you alluded to which gets a little fuzzy when you have multiple routers all with Internet connections. DHCP isn't going anywhere.
The only legitimate problem you posed was VPN access. Otherwise, QoS and multicasting I can already do with my IPv4 network so I don't gain anything by changing my infrastructure which was the whole point of my post.
My point was simply that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem for the vast majority of users. I'm not going to say that nobody uses UPnP especially in the business world but most don't as it's unnecessary when you have proxies doing the work for you. Instead of scripts exploiting IPv4 addressing there will be scripts to read the advertisements and take over the router which is shouting its address on the network.
There is nothing compelling about IPv6 for the majority of us. The only reason I'm even considering it now is because at some point I'm going to have to so I'd rather be ready before I have to be.
Of course all of this is on top of the fact that the majority of layer 3 switches out there don't support IPv6 without firmware updates if updates are even available without having to pay for them. Cisco, I'm looking at you. Switches take a long time to die too. You'll have to forgive those of us that have working IPv4 deployments for not wanting to introduce new infrastructure for the sake of IPv6. Most of my network printers don't support IPv6 and never will. None of my security cameras, card swipe machines, credit card machines, and a myriad of other devices. With so many devices out there not supporting it yet I'd have to maintain the same IPv4 infrastructure while adding IPv6 infrastructure. You're right that I can run most of them side by side but again, it's adding variables to a network that is already running fine.
And then there are those of us managing hundreds and thousands of devices that don't support IPv6. Windows XP is one of the most popular operating systems on the planet and you have to add IPv6 support to default installs of it which the vast majority of machines out there are. The problems aren't show-stoppers, there are just a lot of problems with migrating to IPv6 on any scale. Top it off with the fact that there aren't really any benefits for the majority of us that don't have current problems with NAT and you can't really blame people for not wanting to give up something they've known for a great many years that has proven reliable in the majority of environments.
I don't need me printer to have an Internet addressable IP. I don't even need my home workstation to. It solves a problem most people don't have. For those with NAT issues then yes, the transition makes a lot of sense. For those without current layer 3 problems it just doesn't make sense to go through all the effort involved in fundamentally modifying your infrastructure.
Most people do not want that option though. Allow more machines to have more services in an age when companies are fighting the P2P battle and other desktop apps trying to reduce what end users are capable of. They aren't trying to add more. If you run lots of VOIP you install a PBX on your network and use it as a proxy to the outside world. This gives you the benefit of monitoring the calls which most businesses actually like.
Now home users would be okay with this but it's the same story for them. Their router will be given an IPv6 address and then tunnel all the IPv4 traffic since a lot of old hardware and software won't support IPv6.
I can already do multiple machines. I have 32 IPv4 addresses that my firewall will forward traffic accordingly to internal servers. In short, I gain nothing by going to IPv6. Autoconfig seems like a good idea but most people hate magic protocols and are going to opt for DHCPv6 so they can control who gets what addressing on which subnet.
I'll go IPv6 in my virtual environments first until I'm happy with all the services for end-users. Until then, why go through all the effort when you don't have to?
While I agree with your premise for internal networking you fail to understand what the parent was referring to with 4.2.2.1 or in my case 4.2.2.2 and a bunch of other Internet addresses that are commonly used during the diagnostic process. Remembering an internal subnet is easy, nevermind the fact that I run about 20 VLANs with different subnets on each one. My whole topology changes when I switch to IPv6. Expect a lot of resistance to this change when it affects everything on your network at a fundamental level.
To most of us, the idea of subnetting internal addresses spaces makes a lot of sense as it is an easy way to control who has access to what at a layer 3 level. With IPv6 and a single subnet, you now have to rely on Intranet based gigabit firewalls to keep everything locked down. In my network, you're on your VLAN and if you change your subnet to try to gain access to a server you won't get anywhere. This is besides the fact that only the newest layer 3 switches even support IPv6 routing. Many many businesses run switching and routing gear until it dies and the vast majority of it doesn't support IPv6. On top of that, most even brand new printers don't come with IPv6 support and all my security cameras are in the same boat. Yes you can run IPv4 tunnels but that means you have to maintain both IPv6 and IPv4 infrastructures until everything catches up. There is no smooth transition to IPv6 for any company of size. Tiny shops can get by probably pretty easily as they don't have lots of bandwidth considerations. My load balancers and firewalls also don't support IPv6 and they are less than two years old. I will grant that there is a firmware version I can install for the firewall to get IPv6 but the balancer is screwed.
Bottom line, expect a lot of resistance to this change as it is the biggest change since going from token ring to Ethernet. Combined with the fact that many people were taught IPv4 in networking classes and have had no exposure at all to IPv6 you get a whole lot of experienced professionals that now feel like noobs.
Change can be good, but right now NAT works fine for the majority of us so there is no compelling reason to change to IPv6.
Except that hotels make no guarantees about this particular service so you will lose the lawsuit every time. Much like what happens if your car gets broken into in the hotel parking lot. Most hotels would rather do what they can to appease you though as they'd prefer happy guests over mad guests. I did IT for a company that had 7 hotels. I saw this kind of crap all the time with guests coming up with any excuse in the book to get their room for free or to rack up discounts to get a better room. I know of a guest that put a bunch of food in her garbage in her hotel room room at Mandalay Bay. She waited for it to smell bad, then placed it outside her door and called the front desk to complain about the smell in the hallway so that they would be put her up in The Hotel which has much nicer rooms.
As I said, this happens all the time. In short, you should rely on yourself to meet your schedule as only you are to blame for missing your flight. Same thing would happen if your cab broke down. They will most likely do their best to get you where you need to go, but if it is beyond their ability to fix and they decide you're not being reasonable they have plenty of solid legal ground. Too many people think you can sue of every little thing that happens and the sad reality is that far too many cases make it to the judge when they are obviously frivolous.
Bandwidth gets cheaper the more you have it. I can tell you that all the business accounts with these same providers have SLA agreements involving bandwidth and uptime which means that can't oversell that much. Then you also have companies like IO Data which don't oversell. They actually buy more bandwidth and more power than required to prevent problems such as these. They make plenty of money too.
The reality is that they aren't expanding capacity. I put on a traveling show so I can speak from a little person experience on this. 3 years ago I had a show in Florida and I wanted a DSL line for it. They gave me a 6meg pipe. I wasn't happy as that was slower than I can get in rural parts of Vermont let alone the urban area that is Palm Beach. Well, last year I went to order more DSL lines since they don't offer faster DSL service yet and all they could offer me were 3meg circuits to the same damned location!
Another example here in Scottsdale. I provided a fiber circuit for gigabit Internet to the premises knowing that I only needed 50meg at the time. 2 years later the max they can provide me is 80meg which admittedly you still need a gigabit interface for. Bottom line is that most ISPs are trimming important parts of their business to save money and make a bigger profit. This has put the majority of them in bad positions to provide us with the service we desire. It also keeps our costs up since upgrading after the fact is still mighty pricey since they only do it when they actually have to they lose the economy of scale since they are only buying 2 100k routers instead of 200 or 2000. In short, they suffer from the same short-sightedness as the rest of corporate America and instead of fixing the cause of the problem they only want to take steps to mitigate the problems at the cost of service and higher premiums. DPI is always going to cost more than simple routing.
Why would the servers get turned off? I doubt Microsoft or Sony are going anywhere anytime soon. In the age where everything can just be a VM there's no reason to shut off servers entirely. When you upgrade to your new hardware you just migrate to the VM and then it's just a file on a SAN somewhere. Unless Microsoft or Sony go out of business this will be perpetual as the costs of maintaining are practically negligible. If the product is EOL then there is likely to be far less demand on the servers so you just keep it in a VM for availability of the remaining few who still play.
You're whole argument is circular. Clearly you haven't thought it through. You say yourself that if there were no illegal immigrants then conditions would improve as citizens would have recourse against abusive practices. They can sue their employers and pay taxes. They contribute to society. So what do you gain out of excluding 10 million people from this system? You really think 20% unemployment is caused by Mexicans doing my yardwork for half the price that a white person would charge? I'm sorry, that's competition and his costs are clearly lower than yours. This idea that Americans are entitled to jobs that time and time again they have shown they don't want is ridiculous and needs to go away.
If you want to make good money, you have to do it better, faster, and cheaper than the other guy. In other words, you have to compete. This is why America became an economic power house and a sense of entitlement isn't going to accomplish anything.
You say crime is up because of illegal immigrants? You say we should get rid of 10 million people that are already in our borders. I'm sorry but you seem to be completely out of touch with reality. There is simply no way you're going to get rid of even a significant portion of this number. 10 million people could enrich our culture, 10 million people could add to our tax base which is coincidentally suffering right now especially in Arizona. These 10 million are already here, already paying sales tax but they can't contribute because we won't let them. These 10 million people could be living much better lives if we weren't persecuting them so thoroughly. Why are the American people afraid of immigrants? Why do we treat people from other countries like they are criminals? This isn't how we should behave and it only fuels those people that hate us now.
Of course this happens with every population explosion of one type or another. The Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese people endured a lot of hardship when they migrated here. Same with Irish, the Italians, let's not forget our black population. All of these groups had limited rights initially until people smartened up and realized that the American dream should be realized by anyone willing to work hard to achieve their goals. There are people who won't work hard too, they are Americans and immigrants alike. Do you spend your time turning us into a police state? Or do you embrace the ideals on which this country was founded?
I'll never understand this argument. Have you ever heard of China town? Or little Italy? Immigrants take a few generations to assimilate to their new country. I live in Arizona and this idea of "illegal" immigration I find offensive to the very core of what America stands for. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave. We accept all walks of life, any creed, anyone willing to work to make a living which is the American dream.
When did America become so xenophobic? If it wasn't for open immigration almost none of us would be here today, why do we now condemn it? What is gained by not providing a path to citizenship for anyone that is in our country?
You simply can't enforce the borders or immigration laws without turning the border into a militarized zone and as someone that routinely goes to Mexico for vacation fun I don't support this. I even grew up in VT on the border to Canada driving up to Montreal for some fun nights too. This is good for everyone. We can and should help each other. Helping the world is how the U.S. got to become a super power. We should be good neighbors and not treat people from other countries like criminals. This does no one any good.
Tripwire, kinda pricey though
Thanks for turning me on to the site. I'm gonna have to try it out.
My vision sucks, lenses are very expensive everywhere you go and represent the majority of the cost. Contacts are quite expensive too as a result. Paying large out of pocket sums is not something unique to my situation as almost everyone I know is in similar situations. For me it would have been $800 for all of that so I still got a heavy discount and buying frames that you would wear out in public usually results in paying more than $10. So I'll agree the large cost has a lot to do with my personal preferences. The bottom line is that it is cheaper for me to just not have vision insurance given how crappy the coverage is. Sure it's only $14/month but I haven't gotten glasses in 10 years and that was only because I needed new ones so that I can get Lasik since you can't wear contacts before you get the surgery. I hate wearing glasses though, the lack of peripheral vision drives me nuts.
You're right, spectrum licensing should be based on usage and paid every year in much smaller amounts of course. This isn't in the interests of the large telcos though so don't expect it to ever happen. You have any idea how much spectrum they license and just sit on? It's amazing that it's been allowed especially given heavy tax payer subsidies to these same exact companies.
I've heard this misleading figure a number of times and I wonder why you use it. If 70% of the people like what they have which isn't my experience given that I just paid $400 for new glasses and contact lenses with an eye exam while having vision insurance then I don't think this would be the issue that it is.
You're number doesn't include the 40 million Americans that have no coverage at all along with the 10 million+ non-citizens taking into account the numbers are rising rapidly too. How do you discount 1/10th of the entire population of the country and make a statement that 70% like their insurance? Where does this number even come from? What was the question that was asked?
There is no reason that MRI machines cost millions at this point, everything in the healthcare industry is so overpriced because insurance companies pay it happily passing on the premium. There is no recourse so it pretty much has to be this way unless there are some fundamental rules changed which is what everyone is trying to do right now. The whole malpractice situation is retarded too and sue happy Americans are largely to blade for all the bureaucracy created to protect everyone from lawsuits. Hospitals need the machines which are overpriced and so they have to pass on the costs to insurance providers. Hospitals have to pay high salaries to practitioners because of malpractice insurance and all that leads to the person receiving the health-care who will go bankrupt without the right health-care. 60% of bankruptcy is caused by health problems.
A similar situation exists for all telecom. We gave them billions to setup infrastructure and they setup proprietary environments and squandered all of the money so we are left with a substandard deployment for all telephony and Internet to the curb. The problem is the lack of oversight in regards to this money. The companies grew irresponsibly and you can't expect them to just give all the money back as that would bankrupt the majority putting even more people out of jobs so you end up in a place where we pay $99/month for unlimited calling and texting (sort of) and some Internet which you can't use too much or you will be cut off. Bottom line is that for much of the 20th century America had most of the money and didn't use it properly so welcome to our new world where we have to compete with a rebuilt Europe, a China that understands a little capitalism goes a long way, and a crippling oil crisis on the horizon which you just happened to have based a large chunk of your economy with the basis of cheap gas.
I'm not blaming anyone for all of this except for perhaps our representatives in the house and senate combined with a voting populous that seems to like to vote for people that clearly don't support legislation that will help them out with the most responsibility being a short-sighted voting populous. I hope this changes in the future as a new generation grows up dealing with the problems created by the baby boomer generation. Of course new problems will emerge, hopefully we can hold on to our principles.
In the meantime, charging long distance rates and 40 cents per text without a plan will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. Regardless of costs being practically negligible at this point. On the plus side, I'll keep enjoying those chicks you mentioned, they sure are nice to look at. I don't think there will be any shortage of them either given what I see on a night out in Arizona.
AZ already has a sales tax. Thanks though!
How do you register your vehicle to a living trust? The whole reason for registering your vehicle in the first place is to inform ADOT of who is responsible for the vehicle in question. If the picture shows you in the picture you will lose in court as it doesn't matter who the car is registered to, only that you were driving it.
You really need to keep up with the changes to the system as you will likely end up driving without a license. Did you also know that most license plate covers don't even work? They worked against older systems but not the newer ones.
Tickets issued recently are paid in much higher percentages as you get a process server showing up at your door now.
These days process servers will indeed show up at your door for cameras and you do automatically lose your license for not showing up in court. Friend of mine ignored them as you have and got pulled over in Phoenix for driving without a license.
In my experience sysadmins and developers have a symbiotic relationship as you most likely didn't program that operating system that your web service runs on.
Just yesterday our developer and myself had to come up with a deployment strategy that had to allow for some funky activity that most security mechanisms wouldn't allow. So we came up with a solution that actually made our environment more secure while allowing him to deploy his service. Without me he'd never be able to publish the application that the entire company uses and without my backups protecting us from data-loss there would be no need for the application. Without the developer there would be no database to support nor application so we need each other. As a result, he defers to me for sysadmin stuff and I defer to him for debugging and it works out rather nicely. We'll even have beers together without the need for the special day.
In my mind sysadmins are only unappreciated by those that don't know anything about computers or technology. This group of people is rapidly shrinking because people that do have computer skills can do their jobs a lot faster and much more efficiently. They understand my position and feel free to chat me up about problems they are experiencing knowing that I'll take it under advisement and take care of it as soon as I can. It doesn't have to be adversarial. The only people I consistently have problems with are marketing people because they aren't concerned with real metrics. They would rather take hit counts from my site because it shows in the billions neglecting the much more accurate and thus much more likely to generate repeat customers visitor count. My visitor count is in the millions so it's not a bad figure to work with either and it's much more honest. They look at us like we don't make any money for the company neglecting the fact that building an environment that can sustain heavy traffic is what got them the numbers to work in the first place. Few other people make that mistake and realize that if the servers aren't running no money gets made and in return we recognize that our servers would have nothing to do if the sales guys weren't doing their jobs, and the guest services people weren't doing theirs. When you're part of the same company it should be viewed as being on the same team. Too many work environments allow departmental rivalries that only serve to make a company inefficient.
You're knee-jerk reactions aren't any better than their knee-jerk reactions. The reality is that increasing populations force increases in emergency room spending, building hospitals, schools, fire departments, police departments, light rail, other mass transit, and of course 1/3rd of the state is national park while another 1/3rd is reservation.
While I agree spending increased too fast I understand why it happened. Reacting to population growth costs more than preparing for it as any city planner can tell you. One hundred mini-malls are substantially more expensive than one big mall for instance.
Their actions are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. I'll agree this leasing option is a terrible idea but only because there is no will both of politicians and of AZ residents to increase taxes which let's face it, have to be raised. I still pay less in taxes here than I did when I lived in VT and both areas are growing consistently.
Fixed red light cameras should be cut. They consistently are money losers here in AZ which is why they get installed and last about year before being taken down. All that trenching for nothing. Then of course they can't even send the tickets to the right court which was great when I got a ticket since the judge threw it out for going to the wrong court.
Beyond that there really isn't a lot of spending as far as I can tell. I could be wrong though. The issue appears to be a simple need to increase taxes and a reactive populous that isn't willing to cooperate.
Closest answer I have to that is here. As of 2004 it's gone up 30% since 2000 and the growth rate hasn't slowed as far as I can see given that I've lived here since 2001. That might help explain why the government has increased its spending so drastically. I don't see a lot of frivolous programs here, only cities that are grappling with rapid sustained growth.
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
This thread is quite therapeutic for me. I run into the exact same stuff all the time. The blind spot deal particularly bothers me because one of the main lessons they teach you at Bondurant and it applies to Nascar as well as street driving is that braking to avoid a collision is almost never the right move and that changing lanes to avoid collision is far likely to work out better for you given that braking hard usually just results in you getting rear-ended instead of rear-ending the person in front of you.
I've also noticed that most people don't use their mirrors for some reason, particularly the side mirrors preferring to turn their entire bodies instead causing them to swerve. Keep track of the cars around you people! It's not that hard to pay attention. That way when something unexpected happens you know that the lane next to you has room for you or if there is no such condition you can adjust your speed accordingly to create such a condition. Of course never slow down past a certain point depending on the speed of traffic.
Many studies have shown that the speed limit doesn't dramatically effect traffic fatalities, it's the difference in speed that travelers are going that causes the most problems which is why it's recommended that most roads have their speed limit set to whatever speed 80% of the drivers are naturally going. There will always be speed demons and slow pokes but make the speed limit something realistic!
I think you completely missed the point of my post. To preserve our way of life means to preserve our quality of life and I should have been more specific.
To preserve our way of life we have to use more sustainable technologies because what we're doing now cannot continue forever meaning that at some point if we don't do anything we will be either destroyed or severely limited so we have to take action to slow the heating by reducing what we're doing to heat up the planet.
Why? You're DNS servers are clustered and load balanced right? rrright? Those of us that need our infrastructure up don't think twice about rebooting even during the day! A golden age we live in indeed when I can just take the server out of the load balancer rotation, apply updates, perform reboot rest, and then put it back into rotation repeating the steps for all servers in the cluster.
9/11 called, they want their planes in the air. You're not seriously discounting that humans impact temperature are you? I live in Phoenix and even the weatherman goes on tv and comfortably states the blatantly obvious that all this concrete pavement does indeed increase temperatures. This is why the city is so much warmer than the rest of the desert. Man kind has an serious impact on it's environment no matter how much you wish to believe that we don't.
You need to understand that the Earth doesn't care if we live or die, it will go on spawning more life as it always has. The Earth heats up on its own and cools down on its own. The difference is that humans are now messing with the Earth to a large enough extend that it will probably swing more wildly from one extreme to the other as far as temperatures go. We're on our way up, we can either act to slow it down, or ride the wave and let millions die when storms get stronger and stronger and droughts force more and more to starve to death. Humans will survive, our way of life however will be greatly impacted.
No one can state when the massive changes will occur so there's no need to panic and destroy economies but we need to act to preserve our way of life.