Um, the statement this article refers to was only made this morning on the radio program.
He's been wary of the NSA before, in particular Google and the NSA "in bed", and is that a bad thing? It's the very thing the EFF has been screaming about for a while now.
Who favors "my party no matter what" is a nonsensical argument because it's the very ideology that defines what that even means, you can't project what one side means from the other side.
And in any case, the notion that parties are good is a principle Glenn Beck explicitly rejects, citing George Washington and James Madison, saying "political factions" will be the destruction of liberty in America. There's a reason he wasn't popular during the Bush administration, and it was because his relentless criticisms on Republicans in power.
Actually it looks like those clients are up 50-60% now over 2008. But let's just ignore that fact. Let's ignore no one else called the credit bubble around housing prices.
Don't blame Schiff if you're looking for a long term investment and instead go in at the peak and decide to pull out only months later at the bottom, against their advice.
(Not to counter an ad hominem attack with an ad hominem attack, but) You clearly haven't investigated Obama's religion he says he has, have you? Are you trying to forget about the Rev. Wright controversy?
Let's just forget this has absolutely nothing to do with proof or disproof, anyways.
The capital-L Libertarian Party is not the same as the classical liberal i.e. libertarian ideology. There are plenty of libertarian Republicans (Ron Paul), and plenty of non-partisan libertarians (Glenn Beck), both of whom largely share the same non-interventionist foreign and domestic policy (in contrast to neo-con Republicans), and non-interventionist economic policy (like most Republicans, at least the non-progressive ones). Both examples also happen to decry and speak out against both parties regularly, if you ever wondered why the two only became well known at the end and after the Bush administration ended.
It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?
They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)
I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.
Beck takes advantage of the fact that you can't prove a negative.
Example needed, whenever I've seen him he relentlessly cites primary sources to back up his positions to explain things. Watch one show and count how many newspapers, video clips, books, and other primary sources he cites, you don't find any other commentator who even approaches the level he does, not on any side.
How can a political ideology be co-opted? Groups of people could be co-opted, perhaps.
Why do you feel the need to clarify "nondemocratic"? Non-government entities including corporations do not possess coercive power so how could it matter? The whole point to liberalism (libertarianism) is no arbitrary rule, i.e. people rule over themselves and no one else.
Deregulation caused these "terrible consequences" are we still falling for that myth? Do you seriously think that we eliminated Fannie and Freddie prior to the bubble, that we ever reduced the number of pages of regulation on the books, that we ever reigned in spending or the Fed held in monetary policy (1% interest rates for several years, would you call that deregulation)?
* Glen Beck-style fearmongering: If you don't believe what I believe, you will be struck dead by unseen evil forces.
Give me one example of this... I've never seen it. Everything claim he's made tries to explain the actions of people using primary sources, for instance, the claim that people in the administration want to see the collapse of the system in order to build up from scratch, see the "Cloward–Piven strategy".
If you're going to say it's "retarded" don't setup a straw-man argument.
I'm not sure you're listening to the same Glenn Beck, this is the guy who protested the PATRIOT act, was constantly bashed by fellow conservatives during the Bush administration, and flies the flag of "People who give up liberty for safety deserve neither."
Perhaps he said it at one point, he has changed his views massively over a decade (and openly acknowledges it), so not in recent history. I would seriously suggest actually listening to what commentators say from their own platforms so you don't setup a straw-man argument.
WASHINGTON — U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.
Leading the list was the train traveling between New Orleans and Los Angeles — the Sunset Limited — which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.
Many Airports are run by the government and funded by the states or cities. Not to say that's unconstitutional, though. Plus the FAA and TSA together oversees a great amount of its operation.
Transportation is so obviously important to the development of a nation that it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Link to a credible source, please -- The Constitution I read does NOT mention transportation anywhere, all it allows for is the creation of "post roads" which is how we got the interstate highway system built.
Fox "News" can broadcast things they know to be false. Not just lies of omission, actual lies.
But CBS can get away with actually manufacturing false documents for their journalism about, among other things, GWB's military career, and that's supposedly okay. But misspellings by FNC commentators get treated as lies, somehow.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The key word here is foregoing Powers. Which of the foregoing powers is the law executing (i.e. building a post office, which is an enumerated power, requires buying cement, which is not), and why is it necessary, and why is it proper? (Clearly one needs cement to build post offices, it is necessary and the proper way to do it.)
Scarcity means "there's not enough to give them away so we have to make them/auction them off/sell it." Shortage is "empty supermarket shelves before a snowstorm" (if prices weren't changed to reflect the sudden change in demand). The only thing that isn't scarce which I can think of is the air we breathe.
Uninformed buyers do make a free market, they just won't make rational decisions that satisfy their wants in the way they think they will. Which is surprisingly often if you've ever realized you made a stupid purchase. For most purposes you do exclude the small portion of the most problematic/irrational individuals if doing so wouldn't significantly affect the outcome, yes.
The numbers aren't meaningless, and they aren't numbers, it's a specific portion of the IPv4 addresses. The actual number you use is meaningless, yeah, but the important thing is that it's an IPv4 address that you use. The fact that you have control over how it's routed is what gives it value.
Given this base-state, what liberal market mechanism would solve the problem in your view? Like you have already stated, pricing alone won't do it.
It would make it cheaper to do certain things that aren't attached to IPv4 at all, for instance, at the most extreme, VPN tunneling, adding a cost to IPv4 addresses would make people migrate to IPv6 addresses if they know it will work like that. Slowly as the benefits of IPv6 become bigger, more people will find it isn't worth the cost of an IPv4 address and migrate over. That's how markets always grow, they follow the shape of a logistic curve, growing exponentially and then sloping off as it saturates the market, until just a handful of people still use IPv4. My point is having a cost that doesn't reflect the scarcity (cost is normally caused by prices), either too high or too low (right now, too low), will not maximally encourage adoption, because people with extra address space will see no reason to sell it to a higher bidder and migrate to IPv6.
I proposed the regional registries manage who "owns" the addresses, that's what they do already. Or at least rent them off and let the rent rise to reflect the scarcity, same thing (I would still call it ownership for this purpose), only then Apple might be pressured to give up their nice/8 they have.
This is fallacious in a number of ways, first you're assuming that everyone needs Internet access, when they don't... People will stop using the Internet if the cost exceeds the benefits. Second, you assume that everyone needs a unique IP address, when in fact NAT works perfectly well for most users. And third, there's a solution to the high cost of IPv4 addresses, it's called IPv6, maybe you've heard of it.
Huh? Price elasticity in a free market is defined exclusively as a function of availability. The free market is defined by shortages!
That's scarcity. Shortage means completely unavailable goods/services even to willing buyers.
That's a very narrow definition. And they are still arbitrary: any manufacturer can choose any price as long as they can reach break-even at that price-point.
No, breaking even still has an opportunity cost, the cost of what you could have made maximizing your profits. If prices don't reflect market prices they reflect how much the producer values their good themselves, so it's nor arbitrary.
Except that they already are. Massively so. For the price of a single IPv4 address, you can buy 2^64 IPv6 addresses with most providers.
Many people wouldn't take an IPv6 address if you paid them... I haven't seen the prices, but in any case it's still true that if a shortage is really imminent then they are too low.
Heh. Stocks have only one function: trade. IP addresses are not used for trade, they are used for communication. And the reason for non-tradeability has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with routing: if you allow individuals to trade addresses among themselves, who is going to pay for the administration that makes those addresses reachable af the new owner's location?
Stocks represent a specific portion of ownership of capital, profits, and vote in corporate leadership, what value would they have if it was only a medium of exchange? It certainly wouldn't be a very good money if they remained as volatile as they are. There's no reason you couldn't trade IP addresses similar to trade ownership of capital resources.
I don't use "can" to mean "may" I use it as "it would not be impossible."
Ownership of domain names is good enough to call it that for economic purposes... You have full control over what happens to it, what DNS records are kept with it, who to trade it with, for all intents/purposes you own it.
In fact it is a commonly claimed feature of a market, there's even a term for it: the market clearing mechanism. There is no reason that an entrepreneur would want to sell a good at a lower price than would cause a shortage, if they could instead sell to the highest bidders, so they do not occur in a free market, at least not in the short run (before mistakes are corrected). That is to say, selling at a price that causes a shortage has an opportunity cost for both the buyers and the seller.
Crack open an Econ textbook, scarcity is not the same as a shortage. Scarcity means there isn't enough of the good for the cost of acquisition to be free (pretty much everything except air). Shortage means there isn't enough for anyone to acquire even if you wanted to pay for it, and in a market only happens with a bad prediction of anticipated prices, and only in the short term -- Or in the case of IPv4 addresses, when there's no way of trading blocks of addresses.
So... what's your point? No one is claiming the switch would be made overnight, but the fact there is no profit and loss mechanism to drive us in the direction of adoption cannot be helpful at all, and people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses (the people who are willing to pay lots of money because not having an IPv4 address is a massive cost) would be excluded from getting them, while companies like Apple and such have/8 blocks they have no chance of selling off portions of.
Next thing you tell me you can't own domain names or email addresses either? Of course you can't own numbers, but you can own IPv4 addresses, and there's a big difference, owning an IPv4 address means it's routed to where the you the owner want it to go, therefore yes, it does correspond with a physical good and/or product. Newsflash: Shares of a company, FM radio frequencies in a geographical area, and most US dollars are not physical at all, either, but people still own them, and rightfully so.
I mean seriously, we do all of this with domain names already, why not IPs? It would be easier if anything because IP address blocks are homogeneous like shares of a company, all you are dealing with is the size of the address block/the CIDR.
I keep seeing this fear of the IPv4 address pool disappearing, but I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market? So then what's going on here? Clearly the IANA is refusing to allow the prices (and therefore costs) of IPv4 addresses to rise to reflect the true scarcity of them. I think the ANIPC goes as far to say you don't own your IP address to sell. Prices aren't just arbitrary things, they reflect information about scarcity, and if IPv6 addresses were cheaper to adopt than IPv4 addresses, certainly it could only help spread adoption, while still letting the people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses get one.
The last blocks ought to be auctioned or raffled off right now, and traded between the owners, with the regional registries only registering who owns an IP address range, no different than what happens on a stock exchange floor.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the statement this article refers to was only made this morning on the radio program.
He's been wary of the NSA before, in particular Google and the NSA "in bed", and is that a bad thing? It's the very thing the EFF has been screaming about for a while now.
Either way, your timing is badly off.
Who favors "my party no matter what" is a nonsensical argument because it's the very ideology that defines what that even means, you can't project what one side means from the other side.
And in any case, the notion that parties are good is a principle Glenn Beck explicitly rejects, citing George Washington and James Madison, saying "political factions" will be the destruction of liberty in America. There's a reason he wasn't popular during the Bush administration, and it was because his relentless criticisms on Republicans in power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xiz-AE_Ciic#t=35s
The president hasn't ever identified when he switched his position, if ever.
Can you re-phrase that without making an ad hominem attack or "Hitler did it" fallacy?
Actually it looks like those clients are up 50-60% now over 2008. But let's just ignore that fact. Let's ignore no one else called the credit bubble around housing prices.
Don't blame Schiff if you're looking for a long term investment and instead go in at the peak and decide to pull out only months later at the bottom, against their advice.
(Not to counter an ad hominem attack with an ad hominem attack, but) You clearly haven't investigated Obama's religion he says he has, have you? Are you trying to forget about the Rev. Wright controversy?
Let's just forget this has absolutely nothing to do with proof or disproof, anyways.
The capital-L Libertarian Party is not the same as the classical liberal i.e. libertarian ideology. There are plenty of libertarian Republicans (Ron Paul), and plenty of non-partisan libertarians (Glenn Beck), both of whom largely share the same non-interventionist foreign and domestic policy (in contrast to neo-con Republicans), and non-interventionist economic policy (like most Republicans, at least the non-progressive ones). Both examples also happen to decry and speak out against both parties regularly, if you ever wondered why the two only became well known at the end and after the Bush administration ended.
Media Matters uses ad hominem arguments like I've never seen, attacks on character. The World As Seen Through Glenn Beck's DVD Collection. They routinely take him out of context without providing any explanation, to the extent if I didn't know better I would think they are endorsing his positions. Glenn Beck failed his 40-Day Challenge
Several times they have directly contradicted themselves in selectively interpreting what he has said to further their own goals: In 2006 they tried to frame him as "smearing" Imam Rauf (Good Morning America welcomed "talk-radio host" Glenn Beck to discuss Islam, didn't mention Beck's history of smears) but then 4 years later tried to frame him as congratulating the very same in the very same interview! (FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim")
It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?
They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)
I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.
Beck takes advantage of the fact that you can't prove a negative.
Example needed, whenever I've seen him he relentlessly cites primary sources to back up his positions to explain things. Watch one show and count how many newspapers, video clips, books, and other primary sources he cites, you don't find any other commentator who even approaches the level he does, not on any side.
How can a political ideology be co-opted? Groups of people could be co-opted, perhaps.
Why do you feel the need to clarify "nondemocratic"? Non-government entities including corporations do not possess coercive power so how could it matter? The whole point to liberalism (libertarianism) is no arbitrary rule, i.e. people rule over themselves and no one else.
Deregulation caused these "terrible consequences" are we still falling for that myth? Do you seriously think that we eliminated Fannie and Freddie prior to the bubble, that we ever reduced the number of pages of regulation on the books, that we ever reigned in spending or the Fed held in monetary policy (1% interest rates for several years, would you call that deregulation)?
* Glen Beck-style fearmongering: If you don't believe what I believe, you will be struck dead by unseen evil forces.
Give me one example of this... I've never seen it. Everything claim he's made tries to explain the actions of people using primary sources, for instance, the claim that people in the administration want to see the collapse of the system in order to build up from scratch, see the "Cloward–Piven strategy".
If you're going to say it's "retarded" don't setup a straw-man argument.
I'm not sure you're listening to the same Glenn Beck, this is the guy who protested the PATRIOT act, was constantly bashed by fellow conservatives during the Bush administration, and flies the flag of "People who give up liberty for safety deserve neither."
Perhaps he said it at one point, he has changed his views massively over a decade (and openly acknowledges it), so not in recent history. I would seriously suggest actually listening to what commentators say from their own platforms so you don't setup a straw-man argument.
Google, maybe you've heard of it, pulls up this when I query for "amtrak subsidies": http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm
WASHINGTON — U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.
Leading the list was the train traveling between New Orleans and Los Angeles — the Sunset Limited — which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.
Many Airports are run by the government and funded by the states or cities. Not to say that's unconstitutional, though. Plus the FAA and TSA together oversees a great amount of its operation.
Transportation is so obviously important to the development of a nation that it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Link to a credible source, please -- The Constitution I read does NOT mention transportation anywhere, all it allows for is the creation of "post roads" which is how we got the interstate highway system built.
Fox "News" can broadcast things they know to be false. Not just lies of omission, actual lies.
But CBS can get away with actually manufacturing false documents for their journalism about, among other things, GWB's military career, and that's supposedly okay. But misspellings by FNC commentators get treated as lies, somehow.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The key word here is foregoing Powers. Which of the foregoing powers is the law executing (i.e. building a post office, which is an enumerated power, requires buying cement, which is not), and why is it necessary, and why is it proper? (Clearly one needs cement to build post offices, it is necessary and the proper way to do it.)
Scarcity means "there's not enough to give them away so we have to make them/auction them off/sell it." Shortage is "empty supermarket shelves before a snowstorm" (if prices weren't changed to reflect the sudden change in demand). The only thing that isn't scarce which I can think of is the air we breathe.
Uninformed buyers do make a free market, they just won't make rational decisions that satisfy their wants in the way they think they will. Which is surprisingly often if you've ever realized you made a stupid purchase. For most purposes you do exclude the small portion of the most problematic/irrational individuals if doing so wouldn't significantly affect the outcome, yes.
The numbers aren't meaningless, and they aren't numbers, it's a specific portion of the IPv4 addresses. The actual number you use is meaningless, yeah, but the important thing is that it's an IPv4 address that you use. The fact that you have control over how it's routed is what gives it value.
Given this base-state, what liberal market mechanism would solve the problem in your view? Like you have already stated, pricing alone won't do it.
It would make it cheaper to do certain things that aren't attached to IPv4 at all, for instance, at the most extreme, VPN tunneling, adding a cost to IPv4 addresses would make people migrate to IPv6 addresses if they know it will work like that. Slowly as the benefits of IPv6 become bigger, more people will find it isn't worth the cost of an IPv4 address and migrate over. That's how markets always grow, they follow the shape of a logistic curve, growing exponentially and then sloping off as it saturates the market, until just a handful of people still use IPv4. My point is having a cost that doesn't reflect the scarcity (cost is normally caused by prices), either too high or too low (right now, too low), will not maximally encourage adoption, because people with extra address space will see no reason to sell it to a higher bidder and migrate to IPv6.
I proposed the regional registries manage who "owns" the addresses, that's what they do already. Or at least rent them off and let the rent rise to reflect the scarcity, same thing (I would still call it ownership for this purpose), only then Apple might be pressured to give up their nice /8 they have.
This is fallacious in a number of ways, first you're assuming that everyone needs Internet access, when they don't... People will stop using the Internet if the cost exceeds the benefits. Second, you assume that everyone needs a unique IP address, when in fact NAT works perfectly well for most users. And third, there's a solution to the high cost of IPv4 addresses, it's called IPv6, maybe you've heard of it.
Huh? Price elasticity in a free market is defined exclusively as a function of availability. The free market is defined by shortages!
That's scarcity. Shortage means completely unavailable goods/services even to willing buyers.
That's a very narrow definition. And they are still arbitrary: any manufacturer can choose any price as long as they can reach break-even at that price-point.
No, breaking even still has an opportunity cost, the cost of what you could have made maximizing your profits. If prices don't reflect market prices they reflect how much the producer values their good themselves, so it's nor arbitrary.
Except that they already are. Massively so. For the price of a single IPv4 address, you can buy 2^64 IPv6 addresses with most providers.
Many people wouldn't take an IPv6 address if you paid them... I haven't seen the prices, but in any case it's still true that if a shortage is really imminent then they are too low.
Heh. Stocks have only one function: trade. IP addresses are not used for trade, they are used for communication. And the reason for non-tradeability has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with routing: if you allow individuals to trade addresses among themselves, who is going to pay for the administration that makes those addresses reachable af the new owner's location?
Stocks represent a specific portion of ownership of capital, profits, and vote in corporate leadership, what value would they have if it was only a medium of exchange? It certainly wouldn't be a very good money if they remained as volatile as they are. There's no reason you couldn't trade IP addresses similar to trade ownership of capital resources.
I don't use "can" to mean "may" I use it as "it would not be impossible."
Ownership of domain names is good enough to call it that for economic purposes... You have full control over what happens to it, what DNS records are kept with it, who to trade it with, for all intents/purposes you own it.
In fact it is a commonly claimed feature of a market, there's even a term for it: the market clearing mechanism. There is no reason that an entrepreneur would want to sell a good at a lower price than would cause a shortage, if they could instead sell to the highest bidders, so they do not occur in a free market, at least not in the short run (before mistakes are corrected). That is to say, selling at a price that causes a shortage has an opportunity cost for both the buyers and the seller.
Crack open an Econ textbook, scarcity is not the same as a shortage. Scarcity means there isn't enough of the good for the cost of acquisition to be free (pretty much everything except air). Shortage means there isn't enough for anyone to acquire even if you wanted to pay for it, and in a market only happens with a bad prediction of anticipated prices, and only in the short term -- Or in the case of IPv4 addresses, when there's no way of trading blocks of addresses.
So... what's your point? No one is claiming the switch would be made overnight, but the fact there is no profit and loss mechanism to drive us in the direction of adoption cannot be helpful at all, and people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses (the people who are willing to pay lots of money because not having an IPv4 address is a massive cost) would be excluded from getting them, while companies like Apple and such have /8 blocks they have no chance of selling off portions of.
Next thing you tell me you can't own domain names or email addresses either? Of course you can't own numbers, but you can own IPv4 addresses, and there's a big difference, owning an IPv4 address means it's routed to where the you the owner want it to go, therefore yes, it does correspond with a physical good and/or product. Newsflash: Shares of a company, FM radio frequencies in a geographical area, and most US dollars are not physical at all, either, but people still own them, and rightfully so.
I mean seriously, we do all of this with domain names already, why not IPs? It would be easier if anything because IP address blocks are homogeneous like shares of a company, all you are dealing with is the size of the address block/the CIDR.
I keep seeing this fear of the IPv4 address pool disappearing, but I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market? So then what's going on here? Clearly the IANA is refusing to allow the prices (and therefore costs) of IPv4 addresses to rise to reflect the true scarcity of them. I think the ANIPC goes as far to say you don't own your IP address to sell. Prices aren't just arbitrary things, they reflect information about scarcity, and if IPv6 addresses were cheaper to adopt than IPv4 addresses, certainly it could only help spread adoption, while still letting the people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses get one.
The last blocks ought to be auctioned or raffled off right now, and traded between the owners, with the regional registries only registering who owns an IP address range, no different than what happens on a stock exchange floor.
...The various Javascript APIs, web sockets, IndexedDB, SVG, etc, are not HTML 5.