Great point. I remember the congregation's reaction when our pastor pointed out that the Bible would be rated NC-17 if accurately portrayed in a movie, and no movie studio would dare produce it not on religious grounds, but because the content would be so explicit.
Incest, rape, murder, mutilation of corpses, etc...it is all there. Even King David, a man after God's heart, had a man murdered so he could add that man's wife to his harem.
So, I'm curious if the same people calling for these books to be banned will support a Bible ban?
I don't mean due to exhaustion, I mean because we figure out a better way of connecting computers.
For example, IP sucks when it comes to high-speed, high-latency connections (like something a deep-space ship would use). NASA is working on a new protocol to deal with ping times of hours instead of milliseconds. I'm sure there are other proposals that are just now being played with, and others that will come.
Don't forget, 100 years ago, we were just beginning to drive cars, and we've only had computers around for 60-70 years. With another 100 years, I would be shocked if nothing had replaced IP with better functionality.
So far... That is liable to change as IPv6 address space starts to get used up.
I think we'd sooner go to a new protocol completely. So many things have been built with the assumption that hosts will be on a/64, that it would be the same as trying to go after class D or class E IPv4 space, and you'll notice that we have not attempted that. Another thing would be to reclaim every address in the 127.0.0.0/8 other than.1, but again, there were assumptions made and we have to live with them. IPv6 is farther along than you might imagine, and we're already at the point that there is no time to undo those assumptions with IPv4 so close to exhaustion.
IP has its limits, and something tells me we'll be on to something better before IPv6 is exhausted 200 years from now, assuming the same exponential growth (which I don't think can be assumed). It wasn't that long ago that IPX was a viable layer 3 protocol, and I just can't imagine we can't come up with something to completely replace IP (not IPv7 or whatever) in a few hundred years.
Remember, that IP address space is a resource too... and NAT uses fewer addresses than having globally visible IP's.
This is where the disconnect is...you are not saving IP addresses with NAT on IPv6. The smallest public subnet will be a/64.
So, NAT or not, you're going to burn 2^64 addresses on every firewall in every home. If you want to debate IF they should be handing out a/64, then that is a great debate back in 1990, and I might have been on your side then. However, that decision has been made. You are going to have those address, and NAT WILL NOT SAVE A SINGLE ADDRESS IN IPv6.
You're missing my point. Running NATv6 on a gateway requires some sort daemon running on the gateway. Someone has to write that daemon, debug memory leaks, etc. Plus, some devices are going to have that daemon running the whole time without the option to disable, just in case the user wants to use it.
If they don't require one, there's no reason to use one.
Yes, there still is a reason to use one, as running NAT requires more resources.
This is basic design, you shouldn't make anything more complicated than it needs to be. Since there is no need for NATv6, it shouldn't be added. KIS,S!
Instead of getting a hate-on over people who might want to utilize NAT, why not just ignore them?
Because there are far bigger issues to work out with vendor support for IPv6 (as TFA mentioned) that I don't want any of the vendors distracted with a feature that isn't needed. If I have to deal with another bug because Cisco was spending time trying to make NATv6 work, then my time is being wasted by someone else's stupidity.
Let's assume that people were bitching about a lack of Solitaire in Windows 8. I would expect desktop guys to be just as frustrated as me in the demand that Microsoft spend its time working on something that serves no purpose instead of focusing on writing good software.
Except they may not have been in public view to begin with. The Google car-mounted camera system is around 2.5 meters high...higher than a pedestrian or driver of a normal vehicle, so it's entirely possible that the location is not normally viewable from the street.
Exactly. I remember this was a concern brought up last year
Google's Street View service suffered a second blow this week after numerous complaints in Japan forced the firm to start reshooting all the photos. Cameras attached to the Street View car were "too high" for Japanese buildings, allowing them to see over walls into private areas. Google said it would lower the cameras on its cars by 40cm (16in).
Really though... what gives you any more right to insist on taking NAT away from people who want it than they have to force it on people who don't?
Because I have to fix the crap that NAT breaks. If you are a network admin at one company, and I'm a network at another, I'm going to have to deal with the stupidity of your decisions when our companies have to talk to each other.
The need for NAT comes from the demand for it. It's not going to magically go away.
That is one of the dumbest things I've heard. The need for something is solely based on the demand for it? Then what is the demand based on? The need, which is based on the demand? It is turtles all the way down!
You're trying to say there is a legitimate reason for NAT, and I'm asking you to produce one good reason. Your only reason is "I want it".
Ultimately, using a globally visible IP address when it is not needed is wasting that IP address which might very well be usable elsewhere. 2^128 addresses may seem like an awfully big number, but that doesn't mean we should be wasteful.
That ship has already sailed. Most ISPs are giving out a/64 to each customer. That's 2^64 IP addresses regardless if you need them or not. The spec for IPv6 has been designed, IPv4 is about out, and you have more IPs on each network than you will ever use. There is NO need for NAT.
What, exactly, is good about NAT? IPv6 is happening and has been for over 10 years. Part of the implementation is that a/64 is getting assigned to every ISP customer. You're going to have more IP addresses than you can ever hand out, just for your house. What, again, is NAT helping with?
You do know where you are right? "only if you are a network engineer" is going to be a significant part of the Slashdot population.
My assumption is that a real network engineer understands IPv6 and the issues with NAT.
Great point, and this give some insight. A simple line like this would have been far more helpful than a quick-delete with no notice.
However, let's use Thompson as an example. Everything *notable* he has done might be in the DR show article, along with the articles for the TV show and other DR show that he does (forget now, but it sure would be nice to have an article on him to remember what that one was).
That wasn't the content of the article. The article answers the question that yes, these ARE the only notable shows he has done, and that was precisely the question I had. Now, someone that wants an answer to the same question I had will not have an answer, and might even do the same research as me trying to answer the question.
The content of the article, as I remember it, was listing the shows he has produced, noting where he lived and vitals such as age, martial status, etc. It also had a few lines about his history, basically that he was just a simple radio station worked that Ramsey hired with no previous production experience.
So, what is the point of deleting a text-only article like that? Yes, it might be short and simple, but sometimes just seeing that a subject is short and simple is valuable information in itself.
Yeah. Making sure that those that could cause such an explosion don't have shelters. It kinda increases their interest to NOT start such a nonsense.
You assume that US government officials not having a shelter would somehow deter Soviet leaders from dropping the bomb. That's like the idea of putting a 10-inch spike on the center of a steering wheel to make the driver have a interest in driving safe. It only works if the driver is driving the only car on the road.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
No, I want my defense team educating the jury rather than an anonymous edit on Wikipedia. I would also expect the prosecution to be fact-checking everything my defense team says, and the reverse would also be true.
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false. This is core to the American justice system.
If they had to look something up on Wikipedia, then the defense team did a poor job. Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team.
It is one thing when you talk about the discussion tab. What about all of the fast-deletes? Even when there are multiple sources? No debate, not notice to the user that created the page, just *BAM*, your page is gone when you check back on it a month or so later.
Who would even want to screw with arguing with someone so dense as to take such a stupid action, then have to re-create the page and hope another power-tripping admin didn't do the same thing?
Censorship is best done by making it look like there is nothing to discuss, and I've personally seen that multiple times.
I agree, though abolishing deletionism will create certain challenges, e.g. without notability criteria you would end up with hundreds of biographical articles of non-notable persons, making it difficult for users of the encyclopedia to find the (notable) person they're looking for.
When I type "Ben Franklin", it should go to the American founding father. At the same time, the disambiguation should have "Ben Franklin - Plumber" and "Ben Franklin - Cool Dude" as listings. They might be grouped differently, so the less notable ones are harder to find, but this isn't a hard problem to solve.
Text is cheap. Put the notability standard on pictures.
Great point. I remember creating an article on the producer of "The Dave Ramsey Show" after they won an award for best talk show. It is on 500 radio stations as well, so you think the producer would be notable.
No, fast-delete. Not notable. They would rather than their Pokemon characters and have a big red "Blake Thompson" link on the DR show page. I don't get it.
Note, I don't listen to the show often at all, and don't know the producer. I heard they won an award, and he accepted it. I was curious if he was a producer for other shows or what his history was. When I saw he didn't have page, I did some research and created the page. I figured if I was curious, others would be too.
That is the way it is supposed to work, so I thought.
I completely agree with Pharmboy. The issues I've ran into are:
-Paged fast-deleted for no reason (pages with external sources, links to other Wikipedia pages, etc) -Trolls that maintain their pet topics to their standards, and lock out changes from others. -A general attitude that limited information that the admin gang approves of is better than distributed information
I donate to other projects that are free. If I were still able to edit & post on Wiki & have it be used, I'd be donating both time and money. Since I've been run off (not banned at all, just all of my work ignored), I don't donate either.
One could argue that people launching DDoS "attacks" are in-fact perusing a rightful protest.
Isn't having a script to continually request a page for one web site the technical equivilant of marching back and forth in front of a building holding a picket sign?
No, it is not the same as a sign. To me, a DDoS is the same as anti-abortion people locking themselves to the doors of a clinic, or WTO protesters blocking the streets so the meeting can't happen.
You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to force people's actions.
Sort of like MS with that damned alarm sound that goes off whenever there's an error. It doesn't seem to respect the volume setting and if you're using ear buds causes acute discomfort.
You know, you could just go to Control Panel\Sound and change the error sound to a.wav that is quieter while you wait for Conrgess to do this for you.
Sorry, I made the mistake of confusing this debate for the one about Microsoft issuing perma-bans for modded consoles on their online service
I'm actually on the other side with this. If he owns the box, he should be able to mod it.
Slashdot Mirror
Great point. I remember the congregation's reaction when our pastor pointed out that the Bible would be rated NC-17 if accurately portrayed in a movie, and no movie studio would dare produce it not on religious grounds, but because the content would be so explicit.
Incest, rape, murder, mutilation of corpses, etc...it is all there. Even King David, a man after God's heart, had a man murdered so he could add that man's wife to his harem.
So, I'm curious if the same people calling for these books to be banned will support a Bible ban?
I don't mean due to exhaustion, I mean because we figure out a better way of connecting computers.
For example, IP sucks when it comes to high-speed, high-latency connections (like something a deep-space ship would use). NASA is working on a new protocol to deal with ping times of hours instead of milliseconds. I'm sure there are other proposals that are just now being played with, and others that will come.
Don't forget, 100 years ago, we were just beginning to drive cars, and we've only had computers around for 60-70 years. With another 100 years, I would be shocked if nothing had replaced IP with better functionality.
So far... That is liable to change as IPv6 address space starts to get used up.
I think we'd sooner go to a new protocol completely. So many things have been built with the assumption that hosts will be on a /64, that it would be the same as trying to go after class D or class E IPv4 space, and you'll notice that we have not attempted that. Another thing would be to reclaim every address in the 127.0.0.0/8 other than .1, but again, there were assumptions made and we have to live with them. IPv6 is farther along than you might imagine, and we're already at the point that there is no time to undo those assumptions with IPv4 so close to exhaustion.
IP has its limits, and something tells me we'll be on to something better before IPv6 is exhausted 200 years from now, assuming the same exponential growth (which I don't think can be assumed). It wasn't that long ago that IPX was a viable layer 3 protocol, and I just can't imagine we can't come up with something to completely replace IP (not IPv7 or whatever) in a few hundred years.
Remember, that IP address space is a resource too... and NAT uses fewer addresses than having globally visible IP's.
This is where the disconnect is...you are not saving IP addresses with NAT on IPv6. The smallest public subnet will be a /64.
So, NAT or not, you're going to burn 2^64 addresses on every firewall in every home. If you want to debate IF they should be handing out a /64, then that is a great debate back in 1990, and I might have been on your side then.
However, that decision has been made. You are going to have those address, and NAT WILL NOT SAVE A SINGLE ADDRESS IN IPv6.
So does running a firewall... arguably, running a firewall requires more resources than a NAT because a firewall is so much more flexible.
I thought running a firewall was a forgone conclusion, or are you suggesting someone run NAT and no firewall? To me, it is SPI+NAT or just SPI.
I'm curious why you care so much about keeping NAT. If you understand that there is no advantage to it, why would you or anyone else want to use it?
Even if there was no performance gain, why choose the more complicated solution?
You're missing my point. Running NATv6 on a gateway requires some sort daemon running on the gateway. Someone has to write that daemon, debug memory leaks, etc.
Plus, some devices are going to have that daemon running the whole time without the option to disable, just in case the user wants to use it.
If they don't require one, there's no reason to use one.
Yes, there still is a reason to use one, as running NAT requires more resources.
This is basic design, you shouldn't make anything more complicated than it needs to be. Since there is no need for NATv6, it shouldn't be added. KIS,S!
Instead of getting a hate-on over people who might want to utilize NAT, why not just ignore them?
Because there are far bigger issues to work out with vendor support for IPv6 (as TFA mentioned) that I don't want any of the vendors distracted with a feature that isn't needed.
If I have to deal with another bug because Cisco was spending time trying to make NATv6 work, then my time is being wasted by someone else's stupidity.
Let's assume that people were bitching about a lack of Solitaire in Windows 8. I would expect desktop guys to be just as frustrated as me in the demand that Microsoft spend its time working on something that serves no purpose instead of focusing on writing good software.
Except they may not have been in public view to begin with. The Google car-mounted camera system is around 2.5 meters high...higher than a pedestrian or driver of a normal vehicle, so it's entirely possible that the location is not normally viewable from the street.
Exactly. I remember this was a concern brought up last year
Google's Street View service suffered a second blow this week after numerous complaints in Japan forced the firm to start reshooting all the photos.
Cameras attached to the Street View car were "too high" for Japanese buildings, allowing them to see over walls into private areas.
Google said it would lower the cameras on its cars by 40cm (16in).
Really though... what gives you any more right to insist on taking NAT away from people who want it than they have to force it on people who don't?
Because I have to fix the crap that NAT breaks. If you are a network admin at one company, and I'm a network at another, I'm going to have to deal with the stupidity of your decisions when our companies have to talk to each other.
That is one of the dumbest things I've heard. The need for something is solely based on the demand for it? Then what is the demand based on? The need, which is based on the demand? It is turtles all the way down!
You're trying to say there is a legitimate reason for NAT, and I'm asking you to produce one good reason. Your only reason is "I want it".
Ultimately, using a globally visible IP address when it is not needed is wasting that IP address which might very well be usable elsewhere. 2^128 addresses may seem like an awfully big number, but that doesn't mean we should be wasteful.
That ship has already sailed. Most ISPs are giving out a /64 to each customer. That's 2^64 IP addresses regardless if you need them or not. The spec for IPv6 has been designed, IPv4 is about out, and you have more IPs on each network than you will ever use. There is NO need for NAT.
There's a lot more to NAT than security. You
What, exactly, is good about NAT? IPv6 is happening and has been for over 10 years. Part of the implementation is that a /64 is getting assigned to every ISP customer. You're going to have more IP addresses than you can ever hand out, just for your house. What, again, is NAT helping with?
You do know where you are right? "only if you are a network engineer" is going to be a significant part of the Slashdot population.
My assumption is that a real network engineer understands IPv6 and the issues with NAT.
Doesn't matter. I want IPv6-NAT...
You want to learn about security. There is nothing good about IPv6-NAT, and security through obscurity isn't security.
And anyway, IPv6 addresses are ugg-ly.
Learn DNS. You should only be looking at a IPv6 address if you are a network engineer.
Great point, and this give some insight. A simple line like this would have been far more helpful than a quick-delete with no notice.
However, let's use Thompson as an example. Everything *notable* he has done might be in the DR show article, along with the articles for the TV show and other DR show that he does (forget now, but it sure would be nice to have an article on him to remember what that one was).
That wasn't the content of the article. The article answers the question that yes, these ARE the only notable shows he has done, and that was precisely the question I had. Now, someone that wants an answer to the same question I had will not have an answer, and might even do the same research as me trying to answer the question.
The content of the article, as I remember it, was listing the shows he has produced, noting where he lived and vitals such as age, martial status, etc. It also had a few lines about his history, basically that he was just a simple radio station worked that Ramsey hired with no previous production experience.
So, what is the point of deleting a text-only article like that? Yes, it might be short and simple, but sometimes just seeing that a subject is short and simple is valuable information in itself.
Yeah. Making sure that those that could cause such an explosion don't have shelters. It kinda increases their interest to NOT start such a nonsense.
You assume that US government officials not having a shelter would somehow deter Soviet leaders from dropping the bomb. That's like the idea of putting a 10-inch spike on the center of a steering wheel to make the driver have a interest in driving safe. It only works if the driver is driving the only car on the road.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
No, I want my defense team educating the jury rather than an anonymous edit on Wikipedia. I would also expect the prosecution to be fact-checking everything my defense team says, and the reverse would also be true.
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false. This is core to the American justice system.
If they had to look something up on Wikipedia, then the defense team did a poor job. Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team.
It is one thing when you talk about the discussion tab. What about all of the fast-deletes? Even when there are multiple sources? No debate, not notice to the user that created the page, just *BAM*, your page is gone when you check back on it a month or so later.
Who would even want to screw with arguing with someone so dense as to take such a stupid action, then have to re-create the page and hope another power-tripping admin didn't do the same thing?
Censorship is best done by making it look like there is nothing to discuss, and I've personally seen that multiple times.
I agree, though abolishing deletionism will create certain challenges, e.g. without notability criteria you would end up with hundreds of biographical articles of non-notable persons, making it difficult for users of the encyclopedia to find the (notable) person they're looking for.
When I type "Ben Franklin", it should go to the American founding father. At the same time, the disambiguation should have "Ben Franklin - Plumber" and "Ben Franklin - Cool Dude" as listings. They might be grouped differently, so the less notable ones are harder to find, but this isn't a hard problem to solve.
Text is cheap. Put the notability standard on pictures.
Great point. I remember creating an article on the producer of "The Dave Ramsey Show" after they won an award for best talk show. It is on 500 radio stations as well, so you think the producer would be notable.
No, fast-delete. Not notable. They would rather than their Pokemon characters and have a big red "Blake Thompson" link on the DR show page. I don't get it.
Note, I don't listen to the show often at all, and don't know the producer. I heard they won an award, and he accepted it. I was curious if he was a producer for other shows or what his history was. When I saw he didn't have page, I did some research and created the page. I figured if I was curious, others would be too.
That is the way it is supposed to work, so I thought.
I completely agree with Pharmboy. The issues I've ran into are:
-Paged fast-deleted for no reason (pages with external sources, links to other Wikipedia pages, etc)
-Trolls that maintain their pet topics to their standards, and lock out changes from others.
-A general attitude that limited information that the admin gang approves of is better than distributed information
I donate to other projects that are free. If I were still able to edit & post on Wiki & have it be used, I'd be donating both time and money. Since I've been run off (not banned at all, just all of my work ignored), I don't donate either.
Congratulations, you successfully managed to ignore population density.
Right! That's why LA, Chicago, and New York have 1gb fiber to the homes! Oh, wait...
One could argue that people launching DDoS "attacks" are in-fact perusing a rightful protest.
Isn't having a script to continually request a page for one web site the technical equivilant of marching back and forth in front of a building holding a picket sign?
No, it is not the same as a sign. To me, a DDoS is the same as anti-abortion people locking themselves to the doors of a clinic, or WTO protesters blocking the streets so the meeting can't happen.
You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to force people's actions.
Sort of like MS with that damned alarm sound that goes off whenever there's an error. It doesn't seem to respect the volume setting and if you're using ear buds causes acute discomfort.
You know, you could just go to Control Panel\Sound and change the error sound to a .wav that is quieter while you wait for Conrgess to do this for you.
See my retraction: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1892378&cid=34417006
Sorry, I made the mistake of confusing this debate for the one about Microsoft issuing perma-bans for modded consoles on their online service
I'm actually on the other side with this. If he owns the box, he should be able to mod it.