Hyperbole much? Recognizing IPv6 addresses is not that different from recognizing IPv4 ones, especially if you assign local parts manually, which you should do for the servers instead of relying on autoconfiguration, for reasons which should be obvious. So, 2001:db8:0:1001::4 is...?

• 2001:db8::/32 is your organization's prefix. You're supposed to know it by heart.
• 0:1001 is, say, Accounting. You know your network's addressing plan, right?
• ::4 is their print server.

With a bit of practice, parsing the IPv6 addresses you deal with frequently will become second nature. If it doesn't, then maybe you're not such a hot network admin.

Also: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

How desperate, and appropriate.

That's what the nuclear-capable nations' militaries hoped for, but it didn't turn out that way. As already stated in a number of posts above (and argued in TFA), the distinction between tactical and strategic nukes is very difficult to make. Nuclear weapons are simply too powerful (and too dirty, regardless of the size) to be useful in a tactical setting.

One party which seems to have recently realized this is, wonder of wonders, North Korea. There are strong indications that their designed yield was about 4 kT. A piddly tac nuke, right? Well, as mentioned in the discussion after the referenced article, imagine those 4 kT going off in the heart of Seoul or Tokyo...

They didn't sign anything -- see this article. Missile launch ban is the consequence of the UNSC Resolution 1874, adopted after the North's second nuclear test. I don't think that the North is irrational -- just quite determined to preserve the regime and prepared to play provocative moves to that end.

Thank you for reminding me. I'll be twitching for the rest of the day. Funny how much outright crap one can remember -- I thought those neurons have long died off out of sheer disgust.

For the mercifully uninitiated, SCO Unix had a baroque system of little configuration files, object modules, a severely handicapped C compiler, and a similarly crippled linker for the purpose of modifyng kernel parameters and installing third-party drivers, both of which required re-linking the whole kernel (sysctl? dynamic data structures? run-time linkable modules? never heard. OK, it was the early '90s, but still.)

SCO, in their infinite wisdom, tried to make driver installation "user friendly": you would unpack the archive, start the installation script, and a few minutes later reboot to a freshly built kernel. Of course this failed to account for buggy scripts, weird configurations, and cargo-cult admins, any of which could make an unholy mess of the system and/or render it unbootable. I've had the dubious pleasure of cleaning up a number of such messes.

Criticality -- the point at which a fuel assembly can sustain a nuclear chain reaction by itself.

Critical mass -- the smallest mass of fuel for which the criticality is reached; depends on geometry, density, temperature etc.

So the GP's usage is correct. To be really precise, one could note that weapon fuel should go from subcritical to prompt critical to achieve explosion, but that would be nitpicking in this context.

O'RLYEH?

Scale-wise, the Sun could probably swallow the whole Earth and get only mild indigestion. However, launching anything into the Sun is a waste of energy; it's cheaper to punt it into interstellar space, as discussed here.

Existing users won't be affected much: what works for them now will work for the foreseeable future. But that smartphone you're going to buy a year or so down the road -- it's quite possible that it will be IPv6-only on the cellular-radio side (3G or whatever the provider uses for data).

Why? Existing mobile data networks are a mess, addressing-wise. There aren't enough public IPv4 addresses to go around, so you get a private one. Not only it's NATed to hell and back, there is a chance that it will clash with the address received on the WiFi interface when you're connected to your home or office network. So you get creative solutions like using bogons... Shudder.

It's so much easier with IPv6. No possible address clashes. No need for gross kludges. Yes, NAT64/DNS64 is necessary if your destination is IPv4-only, but that is actually a nice carrot for web sites and content providers: "enbale IPv6 on your customer-facing servers and our users will reach you directly, without workarounds".

So IMO the IPv4 exhaustion will affect end users rather soon, just not necessarily in the way that will be visible to them.

Multiple orgasms ahoy.

More precisely: if the DNS has both v6 (AAAA) and v4 (A) records for the site's name, and the client prefers v6 connectivity over v4, and a v6 connection can't be established for some reason, the site will appear to be broken. Most large sites have measured this kind of brokenness, but haven't published their methodology nor results; there is an exception, but it's limited to Scandinavian users. It is nevertheless a very interesting analysis, which basically suggests that eliminating just two sources of brokenness (OS X < 10.6.5 and Opera < 10.50) would practically eliminate client loss.