While I'm a fan of some of those arguments, a couple of them are horseshit. It would be good if the IPv6 fans stopped using the silly ones.
Built-in security: you're either referring to difficulty of scanning due to size (which few worms or attackers bother with anymore) or the notion of IPSec having its own header type (which is useless without a key distribution system). Neither is really worth writing home about.
Auto-configuration: Any actual operational network is going to need DHCPv6 anyway, so autoconf isn't a big draw. For example, any enterprise that wants to keep track of MAC->IP mappings is never going to use autoconf to assign addresses. Heck, if you just want DNS servers, you need DHCPv6. I really don't see why autoconf is a *good* thing. It's mostly just a pain in the ass if you want to do host configuration *right*, rather than the half-assed state that autoconf will leave you in.
native multicasting: this is available in IPv4 as well, and isn't used there either. Don't hold your breath assuming that multicast is going to amount to anything in IPv6.
Actually, hard drives are *not* supposed to be air tight. They intentionally allow airflow into the HD, but through a filter to keep dust out. If you want a drive that is airtight, it'll cost more.
As another poster mentioned below, patents from that period would have now expired. Why not post his notes to the 'net? Even if the car companies patented it, or bought the idea from him, those patents have expired by now, so they're not an impediment to anyone. Posting the notes would allow anyone else who wanted to to use them, and would serve as an obvious "prior art" wall against anyone else trying to shut them down.
Content multicasting (as opposed to the v6 network information multicasting) is possible in IPv4, and it works identically to how content multicasting would work in v6. If content multicasting isn't used in v4, what makes you think people will use it in v6?
Another poster brought up the biggest point: both sides need the ability to rebut testimony or evidence. If the news site a juror is reading is publishing stuff about a trial that (for whatever reason) isn't being brought up in court, that's unfair to one side. It's not about keeping the jurors ignorant as much as making sure that both sides get a chance to have their shot at any testimony or facts presented in the court.
Think about all the stuff that's reported wrongly in the news...now imagine someone poor slob getting jailed because a juror believed the news instead of what was in court. That's not where the justice system should be.
Question for the bio-folks: is there a way for someone (okay, me) to DIY this? I'm curious to know my own genome, but I'm *very* leery of having that data living in some company's database. What I'd like to be able to do is have the data, and be able to look up how any discoveries later on map to what I've got. Is that possible? What I don't want is what seems to be the prevalent pattern right now of companies telling customers: "You have indicators for x & y. Re-do this & pay us again in a few years when we discover more."
I consider "biometric" identity to be the only real proof, be that a signature scribbled by pen, a finger print, retinal scan, or DNA sample. The problem with "identity theft" is when "proof of identity" has not been properly established.
Even then, once it's digitized it's not really proof of identity. For example, if I know how your retina scanner represents your eye on the wire, what's to stop me from sending the bitstream that corresponds to "teancum's left retina" when challenged?
I would agree with you for networking, but not firewalling. As someone who's managing > 100 Cisco firewalls, let me assure you that they're not the perfection you make them out to be...there are plenty of weird bugs/problems with the ASAs, just like with any other vendor. If you want to see just how broken they can be, ask for a detailed explanation of just how their active/active firewall solution works. (Hint: map out the packet flow when a packet arrives at the second context for a flow that started on the first context..and then be horrified at how they route packets internally.)
The very interesting question is whether the agreement between the legacy/8 holders and ARIN *allows* RIRs like ARIN to charge regular fees for IP space. In the good old days there were no formal agreements like that for allocations, so the RIRs don't have the legal authority to change anything, and mostly have to rely on the goodwill of the orgs with these allocations.
This (and several other comments) really boil down to one thing: the price of security. The companies or organizations that get compromised rarely face any actual cost to being compromised, so the costs for doing security right (like, having dedicated computers for accessing financial information) are seen as "not worth the money."
This will only get better when the cost of being compromised is borne by the group that screwed up, not the customers of that organization.
We've had discussions on this idea previously (it's been a strategy point for years, since it started during the Bush admin), and the implementation details (the devil is always in the details) have always been...well...sloppy. For example, in the official proposals released a few months ago there was lots of breathless talk about how you could access your medical records with your cellphone using a certificate provided by your cell provider. Lovely. However, there was no mention of what would happen when you changed cell providers. There was also no consideration given to what happened when a user *lost* their cellphone (or lost their certificate, more generally). Would a user then lose access to their medical history (since it was tied to the old certificate)? How do they read messages sent to the old certificate? How would they notify everyone using this system that there is a new certificate to be used?
They planners didn't seem to consider that things like this *change*, and there was no consideration given to the possibility of identity certificates changing. I would have much more confidence in such a system if they were thinking about this stuff...but I haven't seen any indication they are. Without addressing it this system will be doomed to a truly painful failure.
On the other hand, your taxi driver isn't taking regular shots of vodka as part of his job. Sleep deprivation is considered routine for hospital doctors.
Important distinction: Mr. Moore impresses and inspires "fans." They are just as likely to accept his message as correct (whether it is or not) as the the people you correctly identify as being biased the other way.
Put another way: is Michael Moore winning arguments, or is he preaching to the choir? From where I sit, it looks like he's mostly convincing people that their pre-conceived biases are correct, which is not actually winning an argument at all.
But then, preaching to the choir is what substitutes for actual political debate these days on both sides, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
People are emotional creatures, and logic does not rule us. This happens all the time in office politics, and *quite* often in national politics. How an argument is presented has a huge impact on its reception by a listener. If this person is saying that Michael Moore makes them not want to agree with him, is that the fault of the listener, or the fault of the presenter? If Michael Moore is trying to persuade, and is instead turning off his audience, that would seem to be Mr. Moore's fault for not being effective at persuasion.
In short, there's a reason why pretty people go farther, and why the skilled speakers tend to win arguments even when they're being illogical: presentation and emotion matters. Ignore that and you will always lose arguments.
Interestingly, it's not quite that simple. This is a very interesting article by a defense attorney who was preparing to defend a similar case involving people passing secrets to Israel. If you're the person with approved access to secrets, and you violate that trust then you're going down. But, if you never promised to keep it secret and just received the information, the only law we have is the 1917 Espionage Act. That law bans '"willfully" disclosing "information relating to the national defense."'
So, was it willful? Wikileaks wrote to the US government multiple times offering to do any necessary redactions (ie, to minimize harm), but the US government refused to cooperate. Does that mean they "willfully" harmed the national defense? I would say no, since the US government offers that sort of cooperation to other organizations like the New York Times fairly often, and no one tries to jail the Times writers.
Is it Wikileaks' fault that the US government blew off their offer?
Classified? You mean like the identity of Valerie Plame? Or the location of the team that Geraldo Rivera was embedded with in Iraq? Or, just to pull up an old chestnut, the Pentagon Papers?
News Flash: the media releases classified material *all* *the* *time*. Sometimes it's done with tacit approval (Plame), sometimes it's an honest mistake (Geraldo), sometimes it's actively pushing back on government (Pentagon Papers).
But, to think that the media doesn't publish classified information is, quite simply, wrong.
If they don't, then why bother using the alternate root? If ICANN's root and the alternate will always be identical, what's the point in the alternate?
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm a fan of some of those arguments, a couple of them are horseshit. It would be good if the IPv6 fans stopped using the silly ones.
Built-in security: you're either referring to difficulty of scanning due to size (which few worms or attackers bother with anymore) or the notion of IPSec having its own header type (which is useless without a key distribution system). Neither is really worth writing home about.
Auto-configuration: Any actual operational network is going to need DHCPv6 anyway, so autoconf isn't a big draw. For example, any enterprise that wants to keep track of MAC->IP mappings is never going to use autoconf to assign addresses. Heck, if you just want DNS servers, you need DHCPv6. I really don't see why autoconf is a *good* thing. It's mostly just a pain in the ass if you want to do host configuration *right*, rather than the half-assed state that autoconf will leave you in.
native multicasting: this is available in IPv4 as well, and isn't used there either. Don't hold your breath assuming that multicast is going to amount to anything in IPv6.
Actually, hard drives are *not* supposed to be air tight. They intentionally allow airflow into the HD, but through a filter to keep dust out. If you want a drive that is airtight, it'll cost more.
http://www.acsdata.com/how-a-hard-drive-works.htm
As another poster mentioned below, patents from that period would have now expired. Why not post his notes to the 'net? Even if the car companies patented it, or bought the idea from him, those patents have expired by now, so they're not an impediment to anyone. Posting the notes would allow anyone else who wanted to to use them, and would serve as an obvious "prior art" wall against anyone else trying to shut them down.
Content multicasting (as opposed to the v6 network information multicasting) is possible in IPv4, and it works identically to how content multicasting would work in v6. If content multicasting isn't used in v4, what makes you think people will use it in v6?
One word: money. There's a price to keeping the hardware + people ready & waiting. They probably don't have the money to wait much longer.
Another poster brought up the biggest point: both sides need the ability to rebut testimony or evidence. If the news site a juror is reading is publishing stuff about a trial that (for whatever reason) isn't being brought up in court, that's unfair to one side. It's not about keeping the jurors ignorant as much as making sure that both sides get a chance to have their shot at any testimony or facts presented in the court.
Think about all the stuff that's reported wrongly in the news...now imagine someone poor slob getting jailed because a juror believed the news instead of what was in court. That's not where the justice system should be.
Oh, just fry it and everything will be fine.
And you don't want to see that? Especially with slow-motion replay?
Question for the bio-folks: is there a way for someone (okay, me) to DIY this? I'm curious to know my own genome, but I'm *very* leery of having that data living in some company's database. What I'd like to be able to do is have the data, and be able to look up how any discoveries later on map to what I've got. Is that possible? What I don't want is what seems to be the prevalent pattern right now of companies telling customers: "You have indicators for x & y. Re-do this & pay us again in a few years when we discover more."
I consider "biometric" identity to be the only real proof, be that a signature scribbled by pen, a finger print, retinal scan, or DNA sample. The problem with "identity theft" is when "proof of identity" has not been properly established.
Even then, once it's digitized it's not really proof of identity. For example, if I know how your retina scanner represents your eye on the wire, what's to stop me from sending the bitstream that corresponds to "teancum's left retina" when challenged?
I would agree with you for networking, but not firewalling. As someone who's managing > 100 Cisco firewalls, let me assure you that they're not the perfection you make them out to be...there are plenty of weird bugs/problems with the ASAs, just like with any other vendor. If you want to see just how broken they can be, ask for a detailed explanation of just how their active/active firewall solution works. (Hint: map out the packet flow when a packet arrives at the second context for a flow that started on the first context..and then be horrified at how they route packets internally.)
February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!
The very interesting question is whether the agreement between the legacy /8 holders and ARIN *allows* RIRs like ARIN to charge regular fees for IP space. In the good old days there were no formal agreements like that for allocations, so the RIRs don't have the legal authority to change anything, and mostly have to rely on the goodwill of the orgs with these allocations.
Your car is touching the ground. Shielding is easy when you have a solid ground. How, exactly, do you get an effective ground when you're in the air?
This (and several other comments) really boil down to one thing: the price of security. The companies or organizations that get compromised rarely face any actual cost to being compromised, so the costs for doing security right (like, having dedicated computers for accessing financial information) are seen as "not worth the money."
This will only get better when the cost of being compromised is borne by the group that screwed up, not the customers of that organization.
We've had discussions on this idea previously (it's been a strategy point for years, since it started during the Bush admin), and the implementation details (the devil is always in the details) have always been...well...sloppy. For example, in the official proposals released a few months ago there was lots of breathless talk about how you could access your medical records with your cellphone using a certificate provided by your cell provider. Lovely. However, there was no mention of what would happen when you changed cell providers. There was also no consideration given to what happened when a user *lost* their cellphone (or lost their certificate, more generally). Would a user then lose access to their medical history (since it was tied to the old certificate)? How do they read messages sent to the old certificate? How would they notify everyone using this system that there is a new certificate to be used?
They planners didn't seem to consider that things like this *change*, and there was no consideration given to the possibility of identity certificates changing. I would have much more confidence in such a system if they were thinking about this stuff...but I haven't seen any indication they are. Without addressing it this system will be doomed to a truly painful failure.
I feel sorry for the mailmen in that town. (Wait, wasn't there a building here yesterday?)
On the other hand, your taxi driver isn't taking regular shots of vodka as part of his job. Sleep deprivation is considered routine for hospital doctors.
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html
It was assigned to an interesting, but ultimately not implemented, protocol.
Important distinction: Mr. Moore impresses and inspires "fans." They are just as likely to accept his message as correct (whether it is or not) as the the people you correctly identify as being biased the other way.
Put another way: is Michael Moore winning arguments, or is he preaching to the choir? From where I sit, it looks like he's mostly convincing people that their pre-conceived biases are correct, which is not actually winning an argument at all.
But then, preaching to the choir is what substitutes for actual political debate these days on both sides, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
People are emotional creatures, and logic does not rule us. This happens all the time in office politics, and *quite* often in national politics. How an argument is presented has a huge impact on its reception by a listener. If this person is saying that Michael Moore makes them not want to agree with him, is that the fault of the listener, or the fault of the presenter? If Michael Moore is trying to persuade, and is instead turning off his audience, that would seem to be Mr. Moore's fault for not being effective at persuasion.
In short, there's a reason why pretty people go farther, and why the skilled speakers tend to win arguments even when they're being illogical: presentation and emotion matters. Ignore that and you will always lose arguments.
There's got to be a live feed of this that's planned...any hints as to who would be carrying it?
Interestingly, it's not quite that simple. This is a very interesting article by a defense attorney who was preparing to defend a similar case involving people passing secrets to Israel. If you're the person with approved access to secrets, and you violate that trust then you're going down. But, if you never promised to keep it secret and just received the information, the only law we have is the 1917 Espionage Act. That law bans '"willfully" disclosing "information relating to the national defense."'
So, was it willful? Wikileaks wrote to the US government multiple times offering to do any necessary redactions (ie, to minimize harm), but the US government refused to cooperate. Does that mean they "willfully" harmed the national defense? I would say no, since the US government offers that sort of cooperation to other organizations like the New York Times fairly often, and no one tries to jail the Times writers.
Is it Wikileaks' fault that the US government blew off their offer?
Classified? You mean like the identity of Valerie Plame? Or the location of the team that Geraldo Rivera was embedded with in Iraq? Or, just to pull up an old chestnut, the Pentagon Papers?
News Flash: the media releases classified material *all* *the* *time*. Sometimes it's done with tacit approval (Plame), sometimes it's an honest mistake (Geraldo), sometimes it's actively pushing back on government (Pentagon Papers).
But, to think that the media doesn't publish classified information is, quite simply, wrong.
If they don't, then why bother using the alternate root? If ICANN's root and the alternate will always be identical, what's the point in the alternate?