This. Preferably the FreeBSD License, since it's the same license that's used by the FreeBSD parts of iOS

Your mom, your wife, your baby and you. Makes it 4, of which one of you can't take photos.

You can fit several thousand photos in a 4GB stick. It would be useful for taking not just stills, but videos of the customers as well, while they're on the rides.

Well, to be fair, when we go on vacations, it is useful to have photos of ourselves along w/ those surroundings. Otherwise, any video of that place that's publicly available would have been adequate, and people wouldn't bother taking cameras w/ them. Having ourselves in those pics is a part of what creates the memories. Also, while those pictures are mostly of value to them, they are really shared w/ friends and family. What makes it look like it's being shared w/ the 'public' is that too many people are all too happy to add a gazillion people as their friends on FaceBook

But I do agree w/ you about the selfie sticks.

If there are 4 of you, then there is no reason that one of you can't take a photo of the other 3, and for the all of you photo, call a bystander. This is if y'all are outdoors, maybe touring some place. If you are indoors, it's not all that difficult to set up the timer mode on the camera, and in 10 seconds, get the shot of all of you.

The only people for whom they're really useful is a single person, or a single person and his/her kid, w/ the kid too young to take a pic. But even then, using the timer mode, or holding it at arms length makes it easy, particularly since you can see how you look before clicking!

Fully agree! I had gone for years missing taking pics of myself. But recently, when I had my kid over for vacation and was taking him around, I asked someone to take our pics. Aside from that, in the mall, I managed to take a reasonably good picture of both of us just holding the phone at arms length.

It wouldn't be dangerous per se: it would only make it more likely that the person drops the phone, and depending on the height, end up breaking or otherwise damaging it. Although on the rides, paying attention to the photos as opposed to the rides is more dangerous. If you have someone in your party who's not on the ride, have him/her take the photo from the ground - or preferably, a video, so that he doesn't have to struggle w/ the correct positioning wrt you.

Problem is that these photographers are still stuck in the 20th century, and will give you a printout. They may sell you a CD if you pay more. That's my biggest turn-off: I don't keep photo albums any more, and don't want a folder cover for a slaughtered tree photo. I have my tablets, laptops, phones, and can even get an electronic photoframe if I wish where I can store any number of photos w/o taking up more space.

I don't mind paying for the ride photo services if they take electronic photos and then deliver it to us in a way of our choosing - either email, WhatsApp, iMessage or any other medium of our choosing, not theirs.

But DHCPv6 would only assign the addresses for 1 or more subnets within the network. Like if the admin has a 2001:db8:bead::/60, DHCP would manage the 16 subnets within that network. But if there was a tablet on that network that also accessed 2001:db8:d0g:a1e:/64, the DHCP wouldn't touch the addresses that that tablet got from this other network. That tablet would have to be separately administered and configured, and if it is set up to accept connections to other networks, there it is. Granted, it's another security issue, but one very separate from the question of whether a device should only be allowed 1 or more IP addresses.

There are a lot of reasons why a network admin might want control on his address mapping scheme, that has nothing to do w/ either probability (irrelevant here, since DAD eliminates the possibility of duplicate addresses) nor the convenience of auto-configuration or an 'understanding of IPv6'.

So does ND and DAD - those 2 too would break if you tried a prefix length of, say, 96.

But you don't have broadcasts in IPv6. The equivalent that you have is a multicast to all nodes of that subnet, so the equivalent of x.x.x.255 would be ff02::1 i.e. a multicast to all nodes in the local link multicast group. Also, in IPv6, since the client can automatically create its own link local address - fe80::[EUI-64], can't the router automatically use that to assign a subnet address once it finds that node within the network? In other words, all communication can be layer 3 only, instead of having to go through layer 2?

That's DHCPv4. In case of DHCPv6, the DHCP server proactively gives addresses to everybody it discovers in its network through router advertisements. The process is reversed here - the server gives the client addresses first, as opposed to the client asking for it first.

I was talking only about DHCPv6, not DHCPv4

Can your host files - or any other /etc files - work in conjunction w/ Sendmail to enable email recall, if a recipient hasn't yet read it? If not, why not?