Then don't play those games. Some people like that sort of thing, and they should not have their videogames damaged by your desires
Agreed, I will not be purchasing these titles anyway due to DRM issues.
If you are so deep in the closet that two dudes kissing makes you uncomfortable then I am not sure how you can see the tv to play video games. I as a comfortable adult hetero don't care if dudes want to go after each other, that leaves more women for me.
It is not about being "comfortable" with ones own sexuality it is about being grossed out by PDAs of others. It is a matter of personal taste. Some people like fat chicks and aparagus.. more power to them.
There is no reason this shit can't just be a configuration option.
gay characters, situations and stories have been in games and stories for a long time and it's here to stay for a long time too. so in other words, even if you don't like, deal with it cause it's here to stay
Video games are not TV with fixed content and a ridgid timeline. You could just ask or offer configuration settings so nobody feels grossed out/offended/left out. It is an obvious win/win for everyone.
I will "deal" with video games I don't like by not purchasing them.
I assume the airport will be compensating these innocent passangers for mental anguish caused by the nuclear freakout and arrests.
The chances of a real threat by a competent advasary looking like a hollywood prop are sufficiently remote that if you think any of this was an appropriate response then it must also be appropriate for airports to freak out and close the entire airport whenever *ANY* item is left behind as it could just as easily be a threat.
We can stand around and argue the merits of labeling requirements and food regulation all day long. There are an endless series of tradeoffs I don't much know shit about and therefore will refrain from offering an opinion.
What is not acceptable about the FDA are labeling requirements that allow knowingly factually incorrect information to be stamped on food labels. Tweaking serving size so that trans fat content is below the.5 threshold and therefore always reads zero should in my view be considered a criminal act.
If the argument is knowledge of whats in our shit will negativly effect sales and you can somehow establish this (leaked memos, admissions..etc) to be the case then I would be happy to see all such fucktards regulated into bankrupcy.
If the argument is cost benefit about the practical implications of labeling custom or frequently changing items then external input from politicians representing the public seems like a credible activity.
Ah, and the point is that an ISP could put multiple subscribers behind one four byte address. And it would be better than today's NAT, which is limited by available port addresses and is really a nasty, nasty kludge. And 5 byte address owners can establish direct connections with each other.
We're going to spin new ASICS, patch all network, naming, application stacks, databases and backends all to accept an extra byte..essentially the same work needed to deploy IPv6 then at the end of all that we still have NATs and severe addressing problems?
Say you wanted to be an ISP and picked up a shiney new 4-byte ASN with your name on it. What would you expect to be able to route to your customers after all IPv4 addresses are long gone?
Because a normal desktop UI doesnt work so hot on a tablet, which in the future are bound to replace a big portion of the desktop market.
Replacing the desktop is like end times prophecy. We've been hearing drumbeats of marketeers with their death to * predictions since the dawn of civilization yet >1bn PCs are still here.
If you want to stalk chicks in your area just use foursquares. Why go through a middle man when you can get your stalker info straight from the source?
What creeps me out this sentiment is soo blatently obvious to everyone here yet it seemingly went clear over the heads of those offended by the app.
What kind incompetent idiot makes these statements without first obtaining samples of Treyvons voice and running it through the same process? If they are too lazy to do this then why should anyone trust their result?
I live in switzerland, and for the last three years I've traveled to america every year for a conference. This year I decided to go to a european conference instead, for the sole reason of TSA, Security Theater and having to essentially waive all my rights(!) just to be allowed to enter the country.
While I'm only one person, flying only once per year to america, I wonder how many others did the same.
Its been a few years but from what I've seen hoops to get a US visa in the first place seemed to cause more people to abandon their plans than security measures.
This was before body scanning and groping were placed on the TSA menu so I imagine things are worse now.
I hope nobody wants to go the US anymore cause its what we deserve for treating our guests like shit.
OK, think about this. Clearly, IPv4+ will work just as well as plain IPv4 if you have a 4 byte address, whether that is static, or like the vast majority of connections today, dynamically allocated from a pool owned by the ISP. Now in addition you have the option of giving 5 byte addresses to up to 256 computers in your house or business or village sitting behind your four byte IP. These will all act just as if they had a four byte net-local IP, but in addition they all have globally routable addresses for whatever segment of the internet has also adopted 5 byte addresses. At least that is something, don't you agree? Or don't you?
I think that would be really cool to have 5 bytes instead of four so we call get an extra 256 hosts per address.
Unfortunatly while cool the problem is the world is running out of IPv4 addresses. This means there will be no more 4-byte IPv4 addresses left under which an extra 256 computers could be made avaliable. The IANA free pool and APNIC are now mostly deserts and everyone else except afrinic will be deserts in a year or two.. Even the emergency reserved morsels to facilitiate IPv6 transition will eventually dry up.
Only if you assume that a host with a 5 byte address tries to make all its connections directly before falling back NAT. But there is no requirement to do that. A 5 byte host can always use its ISP's nat, except when it discovers another 5 byte host via some out of band mechanism. For example, two users may be interested in establishing a secure connection for conversation or telephony, in which case they can well afford to take a few seconds to establish their route.
IPv6 uses naming system and standardized default host policy to avoid all of this guesswork. Saying if you don't use IPv4+ ("always use its ISP's nat") then its not a problem is rather telling. "out of band" is punting to a magic unicorn that in many cases does not exist.
Adding delay and unpredictability to the current system is not going to fly with content. Whatever we transition to needs to be at least as good as IPv4 if we expect content to be a driver for adoption.
Your IPv4+ universe is the same empty cliff DISCONNECTED from the IPv4 universe.
Completely wrong. A 5 byte host is no more disconnected from the internet than an IPv6 host is today. See 6to4
You can bridge them using a number of packet mangling bridging/tunneling devices if your clever at the end of the day IPv4+ hosts can't talk directly to IPv4 hosts. The address space is too small. There is no possible return address the IPv4 network understands to send a reply.
OK, you are just hammering away at the same difficulties that IPv6 has and trying to assign these problems exclusively to IPv4+. I guess that means you ran out of points
Please go back to my previous post and read it. I contrasted both networks and showed that the same problems exist in both. The problems that are exclusivly the domain of IPv4+ is unpredictability and unreliability.
IPv6 adption shortfall is not speculation, it is an easily verifiable fact. And it is blindingly obvious that throwing any effort at compatibility to the wind is the reason for this.
A lot of smart people tried and failed, multiple times... The number of transition technologies avaliable and still being cookied up is amazing and confusing. Almost as amazing as the number of seemingly good ideas that were later found to not be operationally viable.
The latest fad from softwires in Asia seems to be deploy IPv6 only and use it to backhaul IPv4 to CGN. Since IPv6 has a bigger address space they just map the global IPv4 to an IPv6 prefix.. like the depricated::1.2.3.4 notation with some DNS tricks to make it all work. Certainly has its problems but works for the most part.
Most of the really creative concepts like using BGP anycast (6to4) to give v4 only hosts a voice on the IPv6 network turned out to cause more trouble than they are worth because of their unprdictability in terms of performance, scalability and reachability coupled with failure to work through NATs.
Paradoxically it is better to have no IPv6 connectivity at all than have crappy IPv6 connectivity because crappy connectivity scares and holds back content from deploying rather than encouraging adoption and feeding a positive loop.
The core issue is the IPv4 space is smaller than the IPv6 space and you can't address all of the possibilities in the IPv6 network using an IPv4 address no matter what you do...(Excluding of course the use of Mr Terrell's ternary logic)... There is no working around this without a packet mangler. Whatever is done requires changes to the entire infustructure anyway..If your going to have to do mostly the same work regardless might as well do something that has a chance of lasting.
For a good example of a successful incompatible-but-compatible design, look at AMD's x64 effort. The 64 bit instruction set will not run 32 bit programs unaltered, but the designs are a similar enough tha
How does host B know if host A will be able to receive host B's message?
Simple: if host A does not understand 5 byte IPv4+, it cannot establish a direct connection with host B. Host A should upgrade if it wants to connect directly to host B. Meanwhile, host B, with a 5 byte address, can connect directly to any IPv4+ enabled host whether the other host has a four or five byte address.
The question remains unanswered. How can you tell whether Host A AND your specific path to Host A supports IPv4+? Do you just try it.. if request times out assume it does not have connectivity? This delay is not commercially viable. What if the host was down or routing changed thru a router without support for IPv4+..how do you know? How does it work?
To connect to an unaware IPv4 host, host B needs some help from a NAT. This is where having the fifth byte on the low order end is really helpful: the NAT does not need to be stateful and does not need to delve into protocols. It just needs to manage its pool of dynamic IPs as dynamic IP shemes already do.
It most certainly needs to keep state... 1 real IP shared by a bunch of fake (IPv4+) IPs requires state to manage the 1:many association on the real IP. Running out of IPv4 addresses has consequences. Thinking there will be a "pool" of addresses is like attempting to alert your phone company of service outage via the same phone effected by outage.
Unlike the big adminstrative headache of IPv6 dual stack, all the dotcom needs is the equivalent of apt-get upgrade. So IPv4+ traffic can just grow organically as routes appear and hosts come online, and there is none of this take a leap of faith and jump off the cliff into the huge, empty IPv6 internet that has dogged IPv6 from the start.
I don't need to type apt-get cause all my toys are already IPv6 enabled. It takes an ISP to route me an IPv6 address the same as it takes an ISP to route me an IPv4+ address.
Your IPv4+ universe is the same empty cliff DISCONNECTED from the IPv4 universe. There is no direct communication possible without a NAT device the same way there is no direct communication possible between IPv4 and IPv6.
Deploying IPv4+ only is about as worthless as deploying IPv6 only without a NAT. The only difference is the end state.
With IPv6 at the end of the day you turn off IPv4 network/NAT when the transition is complete enough for your taste. You will easily know when this is because you will no longer be connecting to any IPv4 addresses.
With IPv4+ at the end of the day you turn off the NATs and pray cause you'll have no clue who is still using what.
Yes we can. If the low order byte of host B's address is zero, they can communicate, otherwise A needs to upgrade in order to establish a direct connection with B.
I want to send a message to host A from host B. Host A is on IPv4. Host B is NOT. Host B does NOT have an IPv4 address because ah...well they ran out and running out has consequences.
How does host B know if host A will be able to receive host B's message?
IPv6 has the same issue.
IPv4 and IPv6 are separate networks, separate routing, separate addressing. There is no problem of partial reachability within an IP universe in a dual stack environment. Either you have IPv4 connectivity, IPv6 connectivity or both. IPv4 and IPv6 universes are completely separate. In your scenario a host may support your IP protocol however if any router along the path does not then things don't work. Good luck finding out why and getting someone outside of your administrative control to fix it.
What? Your leap of logic escapes me.
Review my Host A and Host B question and try and answer it. When you fail you will understand my point.
As I already stated. Standard IPv4 addresses are extended with a byte of zero at the low order end.
Not good enough. See my Host A / Host B question above. Also consider the following:
MegaCo gets a more specific route of 1.1.1.1.x.y routed to them. 1.1.1.1 is a DSL user.
Whenever anyone tries to go to MegaCo and some host or intermediate router does not support your IP extension DSL user gets flooded with "invalid" packets as well as unintended information leakage.
How do you conclude that renumbering is required?
It is required if you want to avoid the Host A/Host B reachability problem. I assume you want to avoid this as operationally it is a showstopper. To ensure reliability people need to know that if they take action X they will see Y outcome. If I deploy IPv6 I get access to the IPv6 network. If I deploy an IPv4 CGN I get access to the IPv4 network. With your hack I'm getting access to some bastardized unreliable hybrid until EVERYONE upgrades. This is not a commercially viable solution.
Both those claims are firmly in the "hopefully, one day" category.
They are statements of fact independant of the deployment status of IPv6.
That requires a creative definition of "well on the way".
Every major content provider and ISP in the US is testing and or deploying IPv6. It is happening with or without you.
Nice rhetoric, but I you didn't prove that.
Not a single person on this planet has or ever will deploy your hack.
So the principle is this: two extended address bytes are tucked away in places that will not destroy the internet. Such packets are constructed to appear invalid to unaware applications. If a path exists between a source and a destination both supportting extended addresses then the source and destination can communicate in the extended address space. The new byte goes at the least significant end, not the most significant, so that routing databases do not need to change.
These ideas really boil down to the failure to understand the issue is not about IP headers, packet formats or finding clever places to put things.. It is about ADDRESSING.
If the address spaces between IP protocols overlap then nobody knows apriori what paths support which protocols. We can not know if host A communicating via IPv4 can also reach host B on IPvDP or what router along the path prevent host A from communicating with Host B . If the address spaces are kept separate this is not an issue. Operationally this is critical to facilitiate migration. You could solve the problem for peers only by giving all existing IPv4 hosts addresses on the new extension network but this does not address routers, requires everyone renumber anyway and is therefore no better than IPv6.
Operationally IPv6 massive address space is a huge win for operators and end users and is well on its way to full deployment. Your hack not so much.
I have nothing against the man but what does he really know about Airport security? All he would do is spout the same obvious general talking points just about any of us would. Better than nothing but far from ideal.
I would rather see a nuclear scientist talk about ALARA or one of those Isrealis who laughed at our foolishness or people who were violated by TSA or were easily able to circumvent its protections.
That he was axed at TSA request is inexcusable nontheless...I'll be sending my rep a letter expressing my concern this not be repeated in the future hearings.
Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin transactions are necessarily public information.
You can't be anonymous (disconnected) while at the same time expect digital currency to remain globally consistant and secure. It's an oxymoron.
Even if it were possible it is unrealistic to assume a single government exists on the planet who would choose to implement such a system. Where is the value to the government in not being able to trace all transactions even if you..wink wink nudge nudge don't know "who" owns what money at a point in time.
"That meant the timing could be measured far more accurately than the original OPERA measurement, which used ten microsecond pulses."
To be fair OPERA had access to the same and the results were the same so there is really no point at all in bringing this up unless it is your goal to trick the reader into thinking something about the quality of ICARUS vs OPERA that just aint so.
Now, please tell me why I am a lousy human being for not feeling sorry for this dickhead and thinking poetic justice would be to put a webcam in his cell as he finds a husband during his stretch.
Webcam vs rape = justice? Really? And this gyberish was modded insightful?
Most US banks don't have real swift codes either and very few of us seem to care.
It does not mean your cut off from the transaction network it just means you need to go through an intermediary bank that happens to be on a particular network you want to transact with.
There are no shortage of such banks in Russia and China who don't give a shit about US/EU sanctions.
Reading the summary it seems all a terrorist would need is a 100 dollars extra and security would be piece of cakw. Off course it didn't mention that according to the article you need to be qualified first.
Someone who is willing to piss their life away in a suicide bombing will never be willing to go through whatever hoops are necessary to get there.
Santa and the easter bunny are good friends of mine and the leprechauns told me where they stash their gold.
If neutrinos can pass through thousands of miles of solid rock without apparently being affected by it, how are you going to make a receiving antenna of any practical size?
Well we know from the FTL neutrino saga that it can be done. The idea I believe is that if the beam can be focused enough you make up for it by sending a massive quantity of neutrinos and hoping that just one of them hits... A bit like a telescope taking a picture with exposure times on order of minutes to hours.
For the neutrino sources on earth I forget exactly how it works but the signature you get in the detector registers a double hit that allows you to separate it from noise of other sources so these things don't need to be burried under thousands of feet of rock either as they are normally.
I imagine if you were clever you could use timeslots to communicate multiple bytes or whole words from a carefully selected dictionary with a single detection event.
Why can't they use jtag or flash a tiny spy rom that does nothing but download contents of flash? Heck I would bet there is a diagnostic tool that already does that.
Asking google seems foolish. If they can do it and they use the capability that capability is degraded.
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't play those games.
Some people like that sort of thing, and they should not have their videogames damaged by your desires
Agreed, I will not be purchasing these titles anyway due to DRM issues.
If you are so deep in the closet that two dudes kissing makes you uncomfortable then I am not sure how you can see the tv to play video games. I as a comfortable adult hetero don't care if dudes want to go after each other, that leaves more women for me.
It is not about being "comfortable" with ones own sexuality it is about being grossed out by PDAs of others. It is a matter of personal taste. Some people like fat chicks and aparagus.. more power to them.
There is no reason this shit can't just be a configuration option.
gay characters, situations and stories have been in games and stories for a long time and it's here to stay for a long time too. so in other words, even if you don't like, deal with it cause it's here to stay
Video games are not TV with fixed content and a ridgid timeline. You could just ask or offer configuration settings so nobody feels grossed out/offended/left out. It is an obvious win/win for everyone.
I will "deal" with video games I don't like by not purchasing them.
Get your politics and public issues out of my video games. I just want to blow shit up not be grossed out by dudes going at it.
I assume the airport will be compensating these innocent passangers for mental anguish caused by the nuclear freakout and arrests.
The chances of a real threat by a competent advasary looking like a hollywood prop are sufficiently remote that if you think any of this was an appropriate response then it must also be appropriate for airports to freak out and close the entire airport whenever *ANY* item is left behind as it could just as easily be a threat.
We can stand around and argue the merits of labeling requirements and food regulation all day long. There are an endless series of tradeoffs I don't much know shit about and therefore will refrain from offering an opinion.
What is not acceptable about the FDA are labeling requirements that allow knowingly factually incorrect information to be stamped on food labels. Tweaking serving size so that trans fat content is below the .5 threshold and therefore always reads zero should in my view be considered a criminal act.
If the argument is knowledge of whats in our shit will negativly effect sales and you can somehow establish this (leaked memos, admissions..etc) to be the case then I would be happy to see all such fucktards regulated into bankrupcy.
If the argument is cost benefit about the practical implications of labeling custom or frequently changing items then external input from politicians representing the public seems like a credible activity.
Ah, and the point is that an ISP could put multiple subscribers behind one four byte address. And it would be better than today's NAT, which is limited by available port addresses and is really a nasty, nasty kludge. And 5 byte address owners can establish direct connections with each other.
We're going to spin new ASICS, patch all network, naming, application stacks, databases and backends all to accept an extra byte..essentially the same work needed to deploy IPv6 then at the end of all that we still have NATs and severe addressing problems?
Say you wanted to be an ISP and picked up a shiney new 4-byte ASN with your name on it. What would you expect to be able to route to your customers after all IPv4 addresses are long gone?
Because a normal desktop UI doesnt work so hot on a tablet, which in the future are bound to replace a big portion of the desktop market.
Replacing the desktop is like end times prophecy. We've been hearing drumbeats of marketeers with their death to * predictions since the dawn of civilization yet >1bn PCs are still here.
If you want to stalk chicks in your area just use foursquares. Why go through a middle man when you can get your stalker info straight from the source?
What creeps me out this sentiment is soo blatently obvious to everyone here yet it seemingly went clear over the heads of those offended by the app.
What kind incompetent idiot makes these statements without first obtaining samples of Treyvons voice and running it through the same process? If they are too lazy to do this then why should anyone trust their result?
I live in switzerland, and for the last three years I've traveled to america every year for a conference. This year I decided to go to a european conference instead, for the sole reason of TSA, Security Theater and having to essentially waive all my rights(!) just to be allowed to enter the country.
While I'm only one person, flying only once per year to america, I wonder how many others did the same.
Its been a few years but from what I've seen hoops to get a US visa in the first place seemed to cause more people to abandon their plans than security measures.
This was before body scanning and groping were placed on the TSA menu so I imagine things are worse now.
I hope nobody wants to go the US anymore cause its what we deserve for treating our guests like shit.
OK, think about this. Clearly, IPv4+ will work just as well as plain IPv4 if you have a 4 byte address, whether that is static, or like the vast majority of connections today, dynamically allocated from a pool owned by the ISP. Now in addition you have the option of giving 5 byte addresses to up to 256 computers in your house or business or village sitting behind your four byte IP. These will all act just as if they had a four byte net-local IP, but in addition they all have globally routable addresses for whatever segment of the internet has also adopted 5 byte addresses. At least that is something, don't you agree? Or don't you?
I think that would be really cool to have 5 bytes instead of four so we call get an extra 256 hosts per address.
Unfortunatly while cool the problem is the world is running out of IPv4 addresses. This means there will be no more 4-byte IPv4 addresses left under which an extra 256 computers could be made avaliable. The IANA free pool and APNIC are now mostly deserts and everyone else except afrinic will be deserts in a year or two.. Even the emergency reserved morsels to facilitiate IPv6 transition will eventually dry up.
Only if you assume that a host with a 5 byte address tries to make all its connections directly before falling back NAT. But there is no requirement to do that. A 5 byte host can always use its ISP's nat, except when it discovers another 5 byte host via some out of band mechanism. For example, two users may be interested in establishing a secure connection for conversation or telephony, in which case they can well afford to take a few seconds to establish their route.
IPv6 uses naming system and standardized default host policy to avoid all of this guesswork. Saying if you don't use IPv4+ ("always use its ISP's nat") then its not a problem is rather telling. "out of band" is punting to a magic unicorn that in many cases does not exist.
Adding delay and unpredictability to the current system is not going to fly with content. Whatever we transition to needs to be at least as good as IPv4 if we expect content to be a driver for adoption.
Your IPv4+ universe is the same empty cliff DISCONNECTED from the IPv4 universe.
Completely wrong. A 5 byte host is no more disconnected from the internet than an IPv6 host is today. See 6to4
You can bridge them using a number of packet mangling bridging/tunneling devices if your clever at the end of the day IPv4+ hosts can't talk directly to IPv4 hosts. The address space is too small. There is no possible return address the IPv4 network understands to send a reply.
OK, you are just hammering away at the same difficulties that IPv6 has and trying to assign these problems exclusively to IPv4+. I guess that means you ran out of points
Please go back to my previous post and read it. I contrasted both networks and showed that the same problems exist in both. The problems that are exclusivly the domain of IPv4+ is unpredictability and unreliability.
IPv6 adption shortfall is not speculation, it is an easily verifiable fact. And it is blindingly obvious that throwing any effort at compatibility to the wind is the reason for this.
A lot of smart people tried and failed, multiple times... The number of transition technologies avaliable and still being cookied up is amazing and confusing. Almost as amazing as the number of seemingly good ideas that were later found to not be operationally viable.
The latest fad from softwires in Asia seems to be deploy IPv6 only and use it to backhaul IPv4 to CGN. Since IPv6 has a bigger address space they just map the global IPv4 to an IPv6 prefix .. like the depricated ::1.2.3.4 notation with some DNS tricks to make it all work. Certainly has its problems but works for the most part.
Most of the really creative concepts like using BGP anycast (6to4) to give v4 only hosts a voice on the IPv6 network turned out to cause more trouble than they are worth because of their unprdictability in terms of performance, scalability and reachability coupled with failure to work through NATs.
Paradoxically it is better to have no IPv6 connectivity at all than have crappy IPv6 connectivity because crappy connectivity scares and holds back content from deploying rather than encouraging adoption and feeding a positive loop.
The core issue is the IPv4 space is smaller than the IPv6 space and you can't address all of the possibilities in the IPv6 network using an IPv4 address no matter what you do...(Excluding of course the use of Mr Terrell's ternary logic) ... There is no working around this without a packet mangler. Whatever is done requires changes to the entire infustructure anyway..If your going to have to do mostly the same work regardless might as well do something that has a chance of lasting.
For a good example of a successful incompatible-but-compatible design, look at AMD's x64 effort. The 64 bit instruction set will not run 32 bit programs unaltered, but the designs are a similar enough tha
How does host B know if host A will be able to receive host B's message?
Simple: if host A does not understand 5 byte IPv4+, it cannot establish a direct connection with host B. Host A should upgrade if it wants to connect directly to host B. Meanwhile, host B, with a 5 byte address, can connect directly to any IPv4+ enabled host whether the other host has a four or five byte address.
The question remains unanswered. How can you tell whether Host A AND your specific path to Host A supports IPv4+? Do you just try it.. if request times out assume it does not have connectivity? This delay is not commercially viable. What if the host was down or routing changed thru a router without support for IPv4+..how do you know? How does it work?
To connect to an unaware IPv4 host, host B needs some help from a NAT. This is where having the fifth byte on the low order end is really helpful: the NAT does not need to be stateful and does not need to delve into protocols. It just needs to manage its pool of dynamic IPs as dynamic IP shemes already do.
It most certainly needs to keep state... 1 real IP shared by a bunch of fake (IPv4+) IPs requires state to manage the 1:many association on the real IP. Running out of IPv4 addresses has consequences. Thinking there will be a "pool" of addresses is like attempting to alert your phone company of service outage via the same phone effected by outage.
Unlike the big adminstrative headache of IPv6 dual stack, all the dotcom needs is the equivalent of apt-get upgrade. So IPv4+ traffic can just grow organically as routes appear and hosts come online, and there is none of this take a leap of faith and jump off the cliff into the huge, empty IPv6 internet that has dogged IPv6 from the start.
I don't need to type apt-get cause all my toys are already IPv6 enabled. It takes an ISP to route me an IPv6 address the same as it takes an ISP to route me an IPv4+ address.
Your IPv4+ universe is the same empty cliff DISCONNECTED from the IPv4 universe. There is no direct communication possible without a NAT device the same way there is no direct communication possible between IPv4 and IPv6.
Deploying IPv4+ only is about as worthless as deploying IPv6 only without a NAT. The only difference is the end state.
With IPv6 at the end of the day you turn off IPv4 network/NAT when the transition is complete enough for your taste. You will easily know when this is because you will no longer be connecting to any IPv4 addresses.
With IPv4+ at the end of the day you turn off the NATs and pray cause you'll have no clue who is still using what.
Yes we can. If the low order byte of host B's address is zero, they can communicate, otherwise A needs to upgrade in order to establish a direct connection with B.
I want to send a message to host A from host B. Host A is on IPv4. Host B is NOT. Host B does NOT have an IPv4 address because ah ...well they ran out and running out has consequences.
How does host B know if host A will be able to receive host B's message?
IPv6 has the same issue.
IPv4 and IPv6 are separate networks, separate routing, separate addressing. There is no problem of partial reachability within an IP universe in a dual stack environment. Either you have IPv4 connectivity, IPv6 connectivity or both. IPv4 and IPv6 universes are completely separate. In your scenario a host may support your IP protocol however if any router along the path does not then things don't work. Good luck finding out why and getting someone outside of your administrative control to fix it.
What? Your leap of logic escapes me.
Review my Host A and Host B question and try and answer it. When you fail you will understand my point.
As I already stated. Standard IPv4 addresses are extended with a byte of zero at the low order end.
Not good enough. See my Host A / Host B question above. Also consider the following:
MegaCo gets a more specific route of 1.1.1.1.x.y routed to them. 1.1.1.1 is a DSL user.
Whenever anyone tries to go to MegaCo and some host or intermediate router does not support your IP extension DSL user gets flooded with "invalid" packets as well as unintended information leakage.
How do you conclude that renumbering is required?
It is required if you want to avoid the Host A/Host B reachability problem. I assume you want to avoid this as operationally it is a showstopper. To ensure reliability people need to know that if they take action X they will see Y outcome. If I deploy IPv6 I get access to the IPv6 network. If I deploy an IPv4 CGN I get access to the IPv4 network. With your hack I'm getting access to some bastardized unreliable hybrid until EVERYONE upgrades. This is not a commercially viable solution.
Both those claims are firmly in the "hopefully, one day" category.
They are statements of fact independant of the deployment status of IPv6.
That requires a creative definition of "well on the way".
Every major content provider and ISP in the US is testing and or deploying IPv6. It is happening with or without you.
Nice rhetoric, but I you didn't prove that.
Not a single person on this planet has or ever will deploy your hack.
So the principle is this: two extended address bytes are tucked away in places that will not destroy the internet. Such packets are constructed to appear invalid to unaware applications. If a path exists between a source and a destination both supportting extended addresses then the source and destination can communicate in the extended address space. The new byte goes at the least significant end, not the most significant, so that routing databases do not need to change.
These ideas really boil down to the failure to understand the issue is not about IP headers, packet formats or finding clever places to put things.. It is about ADDRESSING.
If the address spaces between IP protocols overlap then nobody knows apriori what paths support which protocols. We can not know if host A communicating via IPv4 can also reach host B on IPvDP or what router along the path prevent host A from communicating with Host B . If the address spaces are kept separate this is not an issue. Operationally this is critical to facilitiate migration. You could solve the problem for peers only by giving all existing IPv4 hosts addresses on the new extension network but this does not address routers, requires everyone renumber anyway and is therefore no better than IPv6.
Operationally IPv6 massive address space is a huge win for operators and end users and is well on its way to full deployment. Your hack not so much.
I have nothing against the man but what does he really know about Airport security? All he would do is spout the same obvious general talking points just about any of us would. Better than nothing but far from ideal.
I would rather see a nuclear scientist talk about ALARA or one of those Isrealis who laughed at our foolishness or people who were violated by TSA or were easily able to circumvent its protections.
That he was axed at TSA request is inexcusable nontheless...I'll be sending my rep a letter expressing my concern this not be repeated in the future hearings.
Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin transactions are necessarily public information.
You can't be anonymous (disconnected) while at the same time expect digital currency to remain globally consistant and secure. It's an oxymoron.
Even if it were possible it is unrealistic to assume a single government exists on the planet who would choose to implement such a system. Where is the value to the government in not being able to trace all transactions even if you ..wink wink nudge nudge don't know "who" owns what money at a point in time.
It's amazing one mans hobby in realitive terms makes the entire industry look like a collection of clueless script kittens.
The man is a giant... who must be high on powerup mushrooms by now.
"That meant the timing could be measured far more accurately than the original OPERA measurement, which used ten microsecond pulses."
To be fair OPERA had access to the same and the results were the same so there is really no point at all in bringing this up unless it is your goal to trick the reader into thinking something about the quality of ICARUS vs OPERA that just aint so.
Now, please tell me why I am a lousy human being for not feeling sorry for this dickhead and thinking poetic justice would be to put a webcam in his cell as he finds a husband during his stretch.
Webcam vs rape = justice? Really? And this gyberish was modded insightful?
Most US banks don't have real swift codes either and very few of us seem to care.
It does not mean your cut off from the transaction network it just means you need to go through an intermediary bank that happens to be on a particular network you want to transact with.
There are no shortage of such banks in Russia and China who don't give a shit about US/EU sanctions.
Reading the summary it seems all a terrorist would need is a 100 dollars extra and security would be piece of cakw. Off course it didn't mention that according to the article you need to be qualified first.
Someone who is willing to piss their life away in a suicide bombing will never be willing to go through whatever hoops are necessary to get there.
Santa and the easter bunny are good friends of mine and the leprechauns told me where they stash their gold.
If neutrinos can pass through thousands of miles of solid rock without apparently being affected by it, how are you going to make a receiving antenna of any practical size?
Well we know from the FTL neutrino saga that it can be done. The idea I believe is that if the beam can be focused enough you make up for it by sending a massive quantity of neutrinos and hoping that just one of them hits... A bit like a telescope taking a picture with exposure times on order of minutes to hours.
For the neutrino sources on earth I forget exactly how it works but the signature you get in the detector registers a double hit that allows you to separate it from noise of other sources so these things don't need to be burried under thousands of feet of rock either as they are normally.
I imagine if you were clever you could use timeslots to communicate multiple bytes or whole words from a carefully selected dictionary with a single detection event.
Why can't they use jtag or flash a tiny spy rom that does nothing but download contents of flash? Heck I would bet there is a diagnostic tool that already does that.
Asking google seems foolish. If they can do it and they use the capability that capability is degraded.