Windows has had IPv6 stacks since Windows 95 and Microsoft even started supplying them as of 98.

IPSec is perfectly usable.

Telebit demonstrated transparent routing (ie: total invisibility of internal networks without loss of connectivity) in 1996.

IPv6 has a vastly simpler header, which means a vastly simpler stack. This means fewer defects, greater robustness and easier testing. It also means a much smaller stack, lower latency and fewer corner cases.

IPv6 is secure by design. IPv4 isn't secure and there is nothing you can design to make it so.

IPv6 would help both enormously. Lower latency on routing means faster responses.

IP Mobility means users can move between ISPs without posts breaking, losing responses to queries, losing hangout or other chat service connections, or having to continually re-authenticate.

Autoconfiguration means both can add servers just by switching the new machines on.

Because IPv4 has no native security, it's vulnerable to a much wider range of attacks and there's nothing the vendors can do about them.

Each level is given the parent's prefix plus one or two bytes. Yes, you can announce that and it is easily summarized.

Anycast tells you what services are on what IP. There are other service discovery protocols, but anycast was designed specifically for IPv6 bootstrapping. It's very simple. Multicast out a request for who runs a service, the machine with the service unicasts back that it does.

Dynamic DNS lets you tell the DNS server who lives at what IP.

IPv6 used to have other features - being able to move from one network to another without dropping a connection (and sometimes without dropping a packet), for example. Extended headers were actually used to add features to the protocol on-the-fly. Packet fragmentation was eliminated by having per-connection MTUs. All routing was hierarchical, requiring routers to examine at most three bytes. Encryption was mandated, ad-hoc unless otherwise specified. Between the ISPs, the NAT-is-all-you-need lobbyists and the NSA, most of the neat stuff got ripped out.

IPv6 still does far, far more than just add addresses and simplify routing (reducing latency and reducing the memory requirements of routers), but it has been watered down repeatedly by people with an active interest in everyone else being able to do less than them.

I say roll back the protocol definition to where the neat stuff existed and let the security agencies stew.

Yeah. I've only seen CB used very recently - I think I first saw an alert for it in early 2013. At least once, an Amber Alert went out by CB which really freaked a bunch of people out because they'd never seen a CB alert before.

I think you didn't understand what you linked to when you stated, "is apparently present for some fairly popular devices, but not activated in software"

The problem is that since FM is a highly niche feature, there's no standard for FM HALs in Android. This means that those manufacturers that do implement FM do it in their stock firmware in whatever way they want. With one exception (STMicro's implementation used in many Sony devices), they never document this methodology. (STM's HALs were supported in CyanogenMod for a while, but was eventually dropped because while STMicro documented the basic HAL interfaces, there was no opensource reference HAL implementation, and thus the interface only supported older Sony devices with blobs supported by that HAL.)

You'll note that:
1) All of the devices that app supports are older devices.
2) All of the devices that app supports DID support FM in their stock firmwares. The only issue was that if you replaced the stock firmware with an AOSP derivative, you lost FM, because it was a niche feature and no device maintainer had the time to work on it, partly due to the lack of any reference implementation of an STMicro HAL. I speak from experience in this - I was the CyanogenMod maintainer for the original Galaxy Note from Spring 2012 until I left CM in August 2013 - the Note had FM, but all of my time was consumed reverse engineering core functionality and not niche functionality.)

I haven't seen a smartphone with onboard FM hardware in a while. They aren't simply "disabling" it - an FM receiver costs more, requires board real estate, and as you said, has the additional challenge of an antenna.

It's cost for a feature very few people use. FM is deprecated and obsolete - it's been dead in Europe in favor of DAB for years, and in the USA, satellite radio is the go-to for vehicles and streaming is the go-to for anywhere with wired Internet access (the backhaul for wi-fi in 95%+ of cases is wired DSL, cable, or fiber).

The NAB should look at themselves before complaining about others. FM is no longer a desirable feature for most people thanks to Clear Channel abusing every loophole in station ownership rules (There are various rules that are supposed to prevent one company from owning too many stations, among other things to promote a diversity of content.) The end result is that the content of FM stations is utter crap. The last time I drive without XM, on a single 4-hour drive I listened to one song at least three times, I think it was four. There were numerous other repeats. Meanwhile, if I do that drive with my XM subscription, it's rare that I'll hear even a single repeat.

Simply put, if a phone has FM now, I see that as a reason NOT to buy it, because that is paying extra for hardware that I'm NEVER going to use.

The UK handled everything per the law. They received an extradition request from a country they have a treaty with regarding this. They are required by the treaty to deal with these, they can't ignore them. So they reviewed it in court, to make sure it was a valid request per the treaty and decided it was. He appealed and the case moved up the chain until the high court heard it and decided that this extradition request is legitimate under the treaty, the UK has no standing to refuse.

Up until this point, Assanage was in no trouble in the UK, he hadn't broken UK law, they were just acting based on the extradition request. However then he fled. That is now a violation of UK law. He violated the conditions of his bail. That makes him a criminal in the UK. Skipping bail doesn't make you a "political prisoner" it makes you a standard criminal.

I mean it is a really, really minimal legit player base it could possibly effect. You would have to be someone who plays only F2P games, and has made so few in-game purchases that you haven't even spent $5. There are just extremely few people who are like that. Further, even people like that can still play, they just can't participate in some of the other Steam features. The games are still available to them.

None of the restrictions are on buying or playing games. So even if you've never spent money (I'm not clear that retail doesn't count but let's say it doesn't) you can still play all the games you've got, and buy more games to play (at which point your account becomes unlocked). So you can do with it the main purpose: Play games, including free to play ones. It isn't like they are demanding money to unlock an account.

Also in the event this really was an issue for someone, they could just buy something cheap. I mean if you've dropped $50+ on a retail game it is not that big a deal to spend another $5 if it comes to that.

Part of it would depend on the relative OCs, of course. Also it would depend on if your encoder could use AVX2/FMA3 and if so, how much speedup it provides. For things that it matters on, there have been near 2X speed gains, but I don't know how applicable the instructions are to H.264 encoding.

Another option is if you can find an encoder you like that has a CUDA version, you could give it a video card to run on. However you'd want to check the implementation to make sure its quality is comparable. Also you might need to get a video card that has better double precision performance, as I'm given to understand single precision math isn't enough for top quality H.264 encoding. So like a GTX 480 or a normal Titan, the newer GPUs generally have less DP cores (to keep power/heat down).

Only applies if the encoder you want has CUDA support, of course, and if it knows how to use DP math.

These are well-established, well-tested, well-designed protocols with no suspect commercial interests involved. QUIC solves nothing that hasn't already been solved.

If pseudo-open proprietary standards are de-rigour, then adopt the Scheduled Transfer Protocol and Delay Tolerant Protocol. Hell, bring back TUBA, SKIP and any other obscure protocol nobody is likely to use. It's not like anyone cares any more.

He claimed he could hack the plane. This was bad and the FBI had every right to determine his motives, his actual capabilities and his actions.

The FBI fraudulently claimed they had evidence a crime had already taken place. We know it's fraudulent because if they did have evidence, the guy would be being questioned whilst swinging upside down over a snake pit. Hey, the CIA and Chicago have Black Sites, the FBI is unlikely to want to miss out. Anyways, they took his laptop, not him, which means they lied and attempted to pervert the course of justice. That's bad, unprofessional and far, far more dangerous. The researcher could have killed himself and everyone else on his plane. The FBI, by using corrupt practices, endanger every aircraft.

Did the FBI have the evidence that he had actually hacked a previous leg of the flight, or did they not?

If they did not, if they knowingly programmed a suspect with false information, they are guilty of attempted witness tampering through false memory syndrome. Lots of work on this, you can program anyone to believe they've done anything even if the evidence is right in front of them that nothing was done at all. Strong minds make no difference, in fact they're apparently easier to break.

Falsifying the record is self-evidently failure of restraint.

I have little sympathy for the researcher, this kind of response has been commonplace since 2001, slow-learners have no business doing science or engineering. They weren't exactly infrequent before then.

Nor have I any sympathy for the airlines. It isn't hard to build a secure network where the security augments function rather than simply taking up overhead. The same is true of insecure car networks. The manufacturers of computerized vehicles should be given a sensible deadline (say, next week Tuesday) to have fully tested and certified patches installed on all vulnerable vehicles.

Failure should result in fines of ((10 x vehicle worth) + (average number of occupants x average fine for unlawful death)) x number of vehicles in service. At 15% annual rate of interest for every year the manufacturer delays.