In a high speed crash the van occupants would almost certainly have a better chance of survival than you in your Bronco. Those crumple zones aren't there because they are cheap. They demonstrably and significantly improve passenger safety. Would you rather have some crumpled sheet metal or a trip to the local ER?

I have NO interest in any car from that era. Driven plenty of them and almost all of them suck badly by today's standards. Some of them look nice enough but that's about the end of their appeal.

Easy to fix IF you can get parts. "Solid"? Don't make me laugh. They are unreliable rust buckets for the most part with shitty fuel economy, terrible handling, and horrid interiors which are far less safe in a crash than most vehicles sold today.

Chrysler LLC is an American company majority owned by the Italian company Fiat S.p.A. Might sound like a trivial distinction but it is not trivial at all.

Taxes can be assessed on purchases as well as leases. There is nothing sacred about a lease from a taxation standpoint. Your government can tax pretty much whatever they want to. Furthermore you almost certainly are not leasing your phone. You are buying it on an installment plan in most cases. The difference may sound minor to you but I can assure you that difference is enormous both from an accounting and legal standpoint.

The summary is wrong or at the very least highly misleading. What the judge did was allow the argument for chimp personhood to go forward. In other words the court did not find that chimps were unquestionably merely property. That's much weaker than deciding they are actual persons or legal persons. So yes there was a step forward for Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) but nowhere near as big a step as the summary implies.

False dilemma. Those are not mutually exclusive and you are ludicrously over-simplifying reality. There is a spectrum between freedom and safety and we have to decide where on that spectrum to be. Complete freedom and perfect safety are both impossible ideals that are incompatible with a civilized society not to mention the laws of physics.

That's a good argument. I would agree the switch to IPv6 has taken too long and thus it has legacy problems already before implementation. I'd pick IPv6 over IPv4 but I'd certainly pick something better were that on the table as an option.

The home / small business will be first because they are huge networks that can be transitioned by carriers in a more or less uniform way. The average user just experience a switch over a short period of years:

a) IPv6 is not available to
b) IPv6 is available if they turn it on to
c) IPv6 is on running dual stack with IPv4, IPv4 handles most of their traffic to
d) IPv6 handles most traffic, IPv4 addresses are available but end user experiences lag and possibly other aspects of worse performance on v4 connections.

At step (d) the carrier has lots of addresses

Absolutely home / small business go IPv6 before the rest. Those are huge networks in terms of being able to reclaim v4 space and they can be switched in a more or less uniform way.

You don't have to use future tense anymore. They've run out of steam. We have a situation now where routers use conflicting IPv4 address schemes and thus huge blocks of machines have no IP path to other huge blocks of machines.

There are 0 American farmers whose cost of labor is low enough that it pays for them to scratch out dirt by hand than it does for them to use a tractor. There are 0 American builders who should shovel by hand rather than use an evacuator.

The people in your charity are Americans. Their time is worth $25/hr minimum and likely more like $100/hr. The idea that they can't afford $1k investment per employee is stupid. Regardless of what they say. They may be cheapskates but their assessment of what makes sense is not based on reality.

Agree with you Ben. This will change as the carriers in the USA upgrade to have IPv6 and home / small business rolls over. /. has become a can't do world of defeatists. Breaking connectivity is not going to be an acceptable option. That's obvious.

Most everything runs dual stack. So no.

I'm a huge IPv6 fan and I don't game. What IPv6 does is recreates the pre-NAT world of easy communications between systems. Going back to the symmetrical world where everything on the internet is a server simplifies commuting immensely. That's why I want IPv6.

That and I'm tired of the can't do attitude that IT has developed (and really society as a whole) since the early 2000s. I want to go back to the 1990s world where stuff changed all the time. DevOps and cloud are starting that transition from can't do to can do. But I see the kids doing something like a global IPv4 transition as being huge in getting them to start believing in their potential to make change to infrastructure.

You mentioned DECnet. I was involved in that migration in a company. Migration can occur very fast if they are a priority. And they will become a priority if things are allowed to break. Breaking right now is happening as you mentioned on the area of connectivity that problem is going to get worse.

We have the technology for easy migration and we have the blueprint.

1) Carriers migrate
2) Internet companies (web hosting, CDN...) migrate
3) Home / small business user migrate
4) B2B communications migrate
5) Company's internal networks migrate

We are wrapping up (1) and (2) and staring on (3).