My first thought was Comcast. How depressing.

While I agree with your premise for internal networking you fail to understand what the parent was referring to with 4.2.2.1 or in my case 4.2.2.2 and a bunch of other Internet addresses that are commonly used during the diagnostic process. Remembering an internal subnet is easy, nevermind the fact that I run about 20 VLANs with different subnets on each one. My whole topology changes when I switch to IPv6. Expect a lot of resistance to this change when it affects everything on your network at a fundamental level.

To most of us, the idea of subnetting internal addresses spaces makes a lot of sense as it is an easy way to control who has access to what at a layer 3 level. With IPv6 and a single subnet, you now have to rely on Intranet based gigabit firewalls to keep everything locked down. In my network, you're on your VLAN and if you change your subnet to try to gain access to a server you won't get anywhere. This is besides the fact that only the newest layer 3 switches even support IPv6 routing. Many many businesses run switching and routing gear until it dies and the vast majority of it doesn't support IPv6. On top of that, most even brand new printers don't come with IPv6 support and all my security cameras are in the same boat. Yes you can run IPv4 tunnels but that means you have to maintain both IPv6 and IPv4 infrastructures until everything catches up. There is no smooth transition to IPv6 for any company of size. Tiny shops can get by probably pretty easily as they don't have lots of bandwidth considerations. My load balancers and firewalls also don't support IPv6 and they are less than two years old. I will grant that there is a firmware version I can install for the firewall to get IPv6 but the balancer is screwed.

Bottom line, expect a lot of resistance to this change as it is the biggest change since going from token ring to Ethernet. Combined with the fact that many people were taught IPv4 in networking classes and have had no exposure at all to IPv6 you get a whole lot of experienced professionals that now feel like noobs.

Change can be good, but right now NAT works fine for the majority of us so there is no compelling reason to change to IPv6.

lolwut...? blue-skinned pointy-eared tall skinny dudes on dragons in a landscape with inexplicably floating landmasses. Uh...

Probably because someone told him "But Bill, we named it after you!"

Which didn't help either.

Just remember, the USA is better at everything. Why? Because!

Don't ever question that or you'll be a traitor. Why try to change what is already perfect?

Whew, I feel so much better about OJ now.

Well, technically i said "responsibility," not "motivation" or even "method" :)

Hmm? That's my point... not enough people DO know about common threats, and if they did, they wouldn't be as effective.

I said none of those things; read again. You projected your own bias on to me; then proceeded to call me brain-washed; followed by a wall of text quoting capitalist dogma. Sorry, i can't really take that seriously.

You didn't address what i said; you chose to attack what you think i believe in based on your own preconceptions of someone who criticises any aspect of capitalism. You didn't open a dialogue; you quoted chapter and verse from the most idealistic aspects of business-as-religion, despite the many real-world examples that prove that businesses don't *always* display the rational-actor characteristics we'd like them to.

That's the second nonprofit hospital reference... but we're talking about, i thought, health care as a complete system. That means your GP, specialists, peds, geriatric care, meds, insurers, etc. The whole life cycle of care. Hospitals, hopefully, won't come up too many times per year for the average person.

I'm not sure i should even go into religious schooling.

A standards-based state run (in the 50 sense, not the conspiracy sense) public healthcare system is an intriguing idea. As with education, tho, there'd be massive differences in quality of care from state to state. I'm not sure what the solution to that would be.

That's good, but what would really impress me is more nonprofit preventative care. And let's all laugh together at nonprofit pharmacuticals (which, i suppose, would be possible, if you could attract nonprofit researchers).

That's an emotionally charged statement, but how many of those 'massive civil suits' succeed? How many are even an option for the average consumer with a legitimate grievance? Of course, this also brings the issue of legal system abuse into the debate, and i suspect you and i would probably find some common ground there.

No you don't. You do business in China. You keep yourself willfully ignorant as much as possible about their internal workings, In fact you not only don't require any such thing from them; it would be more accurate to say that you cave in a hot second to China's "don't even think about telling us what to do, and we'll provide cheap labor you shouldn't think too hard about" attitude. So shut the fuck up.

So Sam's making a movie based on a game that quotes one of his own most famous lines. I've nothing insightful to add here, i just found that funny and a little strange. It'll never happen, but i wouldn't mind Mr. Campbell with a shotgun in there somewhere....