I'd say starcraft carriers.

Strap 2 of those together and it does look like the interceptors (somewhat).

For their caching server / appliance they won't bring one in unless you can show that you have at least 1Gbit of traffic going to them (not your total internet traffic).

I'm guessing this is to weed out small players where the setup costs outweigh the benefits, a bit annoying for some smaller ISPs who are not in the US and are trying to counter latency (and its effect on TCP for streaming).

Given that you actually BGP peer with the caching setup, I'd hazzard a guess the full on peering is not very different.

Your entire target user lineup sounds like stuff that

1) I would not be using on a laptop, I'd be setting up a server / workstation (if for nothing else something powerful enough to take advantage of it, I have a pair of SATA 3 SSDs paired with an i7 and sure I can saturate the gigabit port on my laptop but I sure don't do that often, I have the SSDs so I can work on the files locally).

2) Are all available via PCI express cards already (I'd be interested in how your OS would respond to your GPU being unplugged accidentially). The Mac Pro is the only device where I can see it being useful (mainly because the extra options desired cannot be added via more traditional offerings).

DS-Lite from what I've read is no better than CGN in the sense that something still has to translate the IPv6 ip of the customer to a IPv4 address from the pool of available addresses all the while keeping a tunnel open to the IPv6 endpoint (CPE). This may be a better solution than whatever else is available, due to the lack of movement on switching to IPv6 any ISP has the choice between llama-goat-crap and wow-holy-bovine-crap. DS-lite pretty much also assumes that the customer only wants to make connections out via IPv4, with no inbound connections allowed. There is almost no way to have a 1-to-1 mapping between IPv4 to IPv6 (any ISP with enough address space available to have a DS-lite IPv4 pool that big will just run dual-stack).

Also based on http://www.networkworld.com/co...

In other words the LSN has to somehow be able to differentiate between 192.168.1.5 on your network (which might be your PS4 but for the guy down the street its his wife's laptop). This is normally handled by VRF (separate routing / arp / NAT table) per customer, Thankfully they have dealt with this by just tacking on the customer's unique IPv6 address to the record it just makes what I expect to be huge NAT tables even larger. The diagrams from that article also show that the real benefits of DS-lite won't start showing up until the end user's devices are running IPv6 natively (only then can they take advantage of the direct paths, instead of the translated paths).

So if I'm understanding you (and DS-Lite) correctly, how does this remove the need for at least some part of the service provider to understand both IPv6 and IPv4? To me it concentrates the load on the translator devices in exchange for removing the need for the entire network to understand IPv4. In the short term this will be an extremely high load for these devices to maintain, I guess the hope is only token effort has to be put into them so it forces users to switch to IPv6 when available. Given that only 3 of the top 10 sites on http://www.alexa.com/topsites lack IPv6 records (twitter, amazon and baidu) that may not be an unreasonable expectation (the heavy streaming sites like, youtube & netflix are IPv6 so load may actually be lower than expected).

Because if you are "Public-facing" you need to be able to speak to the maximum number of users for your service to stand a chance of being successful. To do that if you have to you need to choose the more common "language", right now that is still IPv4. You can argue the technical merits of going full IPv6 all you want (I have more than I care to admit), but at the end of the day if your product doesn't make money you will be out of business long before IPv4 vs IPv6 becomes a serious problem.

Sadly, Content providers pretty much have to be bi-lingual until IPv4 dies, so do the ISPs (at least at their core, where their IPv4 and IPv6 customers mix, unless they have the enviable state of a full IPv6 customer base or current state of a full IPv4 customer base). The only ones that get to just move and have few repuccusions are the end users.

Until IPv4 runs out and IPv6 is forced on end users by ISPs (on whom it will be forced by having no more IPv4 to give) will this dynamic change and then the content providers will respond by speaking the language the majority of their users are speaking (requiring less translators).

A bit curious as to how you intend to look at the BGP tables and tell that a block is not in use? I understand maybe do a swap ips to make up a larget block to "defrag" the ip space but that requires at least one of the parties has enough free space to perform the swap (something that is going to become even harder to get as time goes on).

Also what concession do you give to an ISP having multiple internet links of which I want half my ips to use link A and the other half using link B? This problem gets even worse when you get out of the theoretical 2 uplinks (very few ISPs have such a small number of links) and start looking at say the Teir 1 providers (of which there are aprox 14) which all have to peer with each other, even if you assume they have a single link between each other there is a formidable task in balancing load between the various links available.

Quicker than what? IPv6 is at least a decade old, we've had time to switch and refused to do so.

If you believe the week to month we get from reclaiming these blocks will have any reasonable effect on the global pace of allocations you are more than a little delusional.

Who walks around a shopping mall with a gun?

Who goes to the movies with a gun?

Even the security guards at these places lack firearms.

The other locations pointed out by the GP are just as good a target as schools if you are not after a particular target.

http://us.hardware.info/review...

The 840 is one of the few SSDs we have this kind of public data on. As they conclude, this one will most likely outlive whatever it is put in with the added benefit of being highly resistant to G-force shocks (normally from dropping).

From a legal standpoint, I don't think its that simple.

Who accepted the ToS? Was it even accepted at all? You can't really do that by just moving files around unless you were relying implicitly on say a site-license, which given Dell is not using these machines internally can't be applicable.

With all the bloatware that sometimes gets included on PCs you can't get around the need for some sort of license agreement which Dell clearly doesn't have in place. What most seem to be taking issue with is the "hijacking" of the Mozilla brand, if Dell forked Firefox, removing any Mozilla branding and included that version instead there really won't be much argument here. From what I'm seeing this is a trademark dispute, TFA points out the revelent parts of Mozilla's licence agreement with respect to this.

Quite true, however it can prevent non-tech people (read managers, HR) from identifying the weak members of a group (or at least how weak they are) by allowing them to at least turn out code that (hopefully) works. The code could be ugly and prone to issues but for most non-techies once it works they are good with that.

Assuming the person hiring is unable to tell the difference means you will most likely get a 50-50 split of strong vs weak programmers hired (humor me). Now ask which one will cost more and see what happens to that split.

A single 140 character SM costs 10 cents here (Caribbean) on the low end, can get up to 40 cents without getting into roaming charges (6:1 exchange rate to US). Its also much more reliable than SMS by an extremely long margin (if a whatsapp has not gone through the sender knows it, if a SMS has not gone through not only does the sender not know when the message comes through it has the sender's timestamp which makes it look as if it had even to the receiver). I got some new years SMSes 2 days after.

A pretty much unlimited length whatsapp is free, plus you can send media (Pictures, audio, video) which works much, much better than MMS. Even if you pay the couple US bucks a year for whatsapp (I think its $2, don't quote me on that though), depending on how much you use text messaging you will at least break even in 1-2 months. My RC group uses it to send announcements for events, after a few broadcasts we would easily have paid for whatsapp subscriptions for the entire group.

I'll gladly concede Whatsapp is not perfect and has its annoying points (e.g. the device must have a SIM / phone number attached so most tablets are left out) but its still much, MUCH better than SMS ever will be.

$666,999?

Ying-yang number of the beast.

At which point the google search becomes the target of the lawsuit (as it now contains the link), which deflects the problem to google not resolve the underlying issue.

Just taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iOS_devices I am seeing that the oldest phone supporting the current IOS version is the 4s.

From what little I know of the apple ecosystem if such a bug was found on a iPhone 3 the effective response would be the same (you are on your own, we don't support that any more).

I agree Apple is better at this but not for any reason other than they have a much smaller list of devices to deal with.