My Android phone works just fine on IPv6 networks.

Right, because peer-to-peer gaming is for losers, and nobody needs more than a few TCP or UDP ports per host, so multi-layer NAT is great, and will continue to limp boldly into the future.

At this point unless you are running an ancient version of your favorite operating system, RDNSS works fine. DNSSL is a Very Bad Idea, so you don't want your host to support that, but it probably does.

Not true. ICMPv6 router advertise messages can include DNS server addresses, and this works well. Populating hostnames in the local DNS using DHCP really hasn't caught on, even in IPv4. It's a neat hack, but hardly anybody uses it. DHCPv6 also lacks an authentication mechanism, although that's about to change, but in fact ICMPv6 has RA guard and SeND (Secure Neighbor Discovery). So you are exactly backwards on the authentication question.

IPv6 supports stateless IPv6 address assignment using SLAAC (StateLess Address AutoConfiguration). There is no need for a DHCP server. There are a number of reasons why using DHCPv6 to allocate individual addresses is a bad idea. If you've ever operated a DHCP server, you know about DHCP's failure modes, so I don't have to tell you. However, people get comfortable operating DHCP servers, and there's job security in it, so there are a lot of IPv4 old-timers who simply can't imagine a world without DHCP.

Speaking as one of the authors of RFC 3315, I think that Google is, if not right, at least not wrong. I would not personally want to have to set up a DHCPv6 server just to allocate individual IPv6 addresses. Talk about driving a nail with a sledgehammer. DHCPv6 is a great solution for the problem of configuring CPE routers with IPv6 prefixes. Addresses? Not so much.

This is a bit of a silly reduction ad absurdum. The problem with trans fats is that they are cheap and satisfying, and so they wind up in lots and lots of foods people eat, to the point that it's hard to find foods of that type that don't contain them, and you really have to care to find the difference. What this typically looks like is that poor people get foods that are high in trans fats, and well-off people get foods that are not, because poor people shop at price chopper, if they are lucky enough to have one they can get to, and well-off people shop at Whole Foods. And you see this very clearly when you look at health outcomes.

So it's not analogous to tobacco smoke, where the person consuming it has a choice. It's not analogous to chewing tobacco. It is related to fast food, because that's where you find the trans fats, but this actually makes choosing fast food healthier for you.

The point is that whether we make people who make risky health choices pay more or not, this actually eliminates a totally unnecessary health risk that nobody would choose to take on if they had a choice. And that can have a really serious effect on costs down the road, so it's economically a really smart thing to be doing, since health care costs are so high right now. But since it's a choice that can't be made at the point of purchase of the health care, it has to be done some other way, and this is a good way to do it.

China seems to be doing okay not in that role now. Being the leader isn't always the best thing--it can be more of a straitjacket than an advantage.

Yup. I installed HSTS on my web site last week, and it worked a treat with both Chrome and Safari. I have to admit that I didn't test MSIE, due to a fundamental lack of Windows on my home network.

Yes, they really think they can protect against an MiTM attack. Of course it's possible that the NSA in cahoots with the aliens has a quantum computer that can MiTM any SSL connection, but even if they do, it's probably sufficiently expensive that they won't do it for every connection, but just for high-value connections. And if not, we're pretty fucked, because a big chunk of the world economy at this point depends on the notion that it is not trivially easy to MiTM SSL connections.

No, it doesn't show that. The point of the computer models is not to predict exactly how bad the outbreak will be. What good would that do? All you have to do to find out how bad the outbreak will be is wait. What computer models do is give us some kind of idea of how seriously we should take the situation. For that, the models did a fine job. They probably shouldn't have been bandied about so much on the news, but that's not a problem with the science--that's a problem with the science reporting, which is a well known problem.

But it's really, really frustrating when people predict a possible bad outcome and suggest steps be taken to prevent it, and then steps are taken, and then the bad outcome doesn't happen, possibly because the steps were taken (it's never possible to know for sure) and then somebody says "you cried wolf." No. Crying wolf is when you lie about a threat you know doesn't exist. The Y2K threat wasn't crying wolf, and this wasn't crying wolf. What both things were were attempts to mitigate a very real risk the severity of which was uncertain. The fact that we didn't have a massive breakdown in 2000, and that we didn't have an Ebola pandemic, are both really good outcomes.

Yup. Humidity is the one thing HRVs don't control well. Although I've found that strategic operation of the HRV can have a big impact on indoor humidity: turn it off at night if the house isn't full, for example, and you can ride over some high and low humidity events. But you have to be careful--forgetting and leaving it off for an extended period isn't a good idea, obviously.

Ouch. Good point.

Make sure your house has a decently sealed envelope, and use a heat recovery ventilator to ventilate it. Saves a ton on electric bills, and is more comfortable. Also make sure it's decently insulated, for the same reason. This probably seems pretty pedestrian, but it will make a much bigger difference in your daily life than gadgets. That said, we also wired our house for environmental monitors (temperature, humidity, air quality), and that has been kind of cool, and we have energy sensors on every circuit in the house so we can see what the house is drawing (also cool). But these things are more curiosities than actually useful, unfortunately. I do make routine use of the weather station we installed outside. And I wired the house for cat6e shielded, which will handle ten gigabit ethernet. I never use it, but in theory it's damned cool. I would like to have a doorbell cam down at the garage, but haven't gotten around to installing it yet. Fortunately that can be a retrofit.

Noah, what it is is simply a different service. I subscribe to Netflix because I can watch stuff I want to watch without having to sit through ads. Full stop. That's the service I'm buying. If Netflix starts pushing ads, they have stopped selling the service I want to buy. If they jack up the price without ads, and it's not an unreasonable hike, I'll pay it, because I like the current service. And you are wrong that ads aren't an inherently evil business model. They very much are: the point is to get you to do something that is against your interests. It's like when you ask a girl if she wants to go out with you, and she says no, and you keep asking her hoping she'll give in. Not cool.

More to the point, I would not pay for Netflix with ads. Netflix is quite reasonably priced at the moment. If they needed to charge more to avoid using ads, I would be okay with that. Of course they could charge sufficiently more that I wouldn't be okay with it, but I don't think they need to. The whole reason I use Netflix instead of TV is that I despise ads. HBO Now's advertising before each GoT episode really pisses me off, and makes me not want to use the service.