So, in addition to "affordable" housing, in your ideal world, the poor will also be provided (by someone) with "affordable" Priuses?

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "transit"?

Which, when done right, gets used by everyone, not just the poor. It was not so long ago a culture shock for me, as a Texan, when my (New-York-based) CEO would take the subway; now, as a transplant to Chicago, I'm very much happier not owning a car at all; my work is a 10-minute walk (hooray for urban high-rise living!), Costco a 20-minute bike ride (hooray for cargo bikes!), my more distant friends in town (or the corporate office, if I need to visit it for some reason) a $2.50, 40-minute train ride, during which my time is free to read, make notes, or otherwise do as I please.

Back to point -- no, setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity. Transit systems are subsidized at a higher rate than roads, but not by as much as you might think -- use taxes on highways are under 50% of their costs -- and adding capacity to a roadway system in an urban environment is prohibitively expensive -- particularly compared to adding capacity to preexisting urban rail. And if you look at the economic payoff from that subsidy -- by way of increasing folks' access to jobs -- it's an extremely clear win.

Smart urban planning -- to avoid the need for commutes in the first place by making housing as dense, and nearby to shopping and employment, as possible -- is, of course, even better.

(Back on the "expensive" part of long commutes -- you might find The True Cost of Commuting a worthwhile read, in terms of putting some actual numbers into play).

AT&T does - phone support has their playbook, which doesn't go very far. Their online customer support actually was very helpful.

My story getting IPV6 on AT&T - http://use-cases.org/2015/01/1...

Yep. A physicist trying to explain a balanced line to other physicists, without knowing the word for it.

Haldane would be spinning in his grave.

If your router enables IPv6, your devices have IPv6 access - no endpoint changes necessary. Current versions of most Operating Systems actually prefer IPv6 but fallback quickly. So it is likely to be turned on transparently.

There is no INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS, there is just an IP6_ADDRESS. The firewall blocks or permits dynamically (likely stateful connection management). The /64 subnet that is routed to your network is expected to be routed to the endpoint by your router if needed (modulo firewall rules).

The biggest issue for home networking is the lack of management of the router/firewall itself. You can't port forward (no config UI), you can't permit specific ports in most current home router implementations. However, configuration of ports and so on are not something that the vast majority of users know or care about.

If the end of the coil that is hanging is grounded (earthed), it becomes an autotransformer. As it's shown, it's a variable inductor and the disconnected end is irrelevant and has no meaningful physical effect at the frequency a spark transmitter could have reached.

This comment seems to get closer to what they actually mean in their scientific paper. But the article about it is garble and the paper might suffer from second-language issues, and a lack of familiarity with the terms used in RF engineering.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I happen have built more than one counterpoise.

The point they're missing is grounding of the "asymmetric" half of the antenna, and that's to keep a static charge from building in the antenna that'll zap through your electronics (or you) for safety reasons.

Sometimes. But you're missing what a Counterpoise does.

With the current incantation of Amazon Web Services (VPC),

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Ela...

So there goes lots of the internet....

Hmm... Non-direct allocated IP on your subnet, 64 bit subnet, pwn-ership aint that trivial. Scanning a 64-bit address space (AT&T allocates a full /64 to me at home) is going to be pretty obvious at the firewall.

Welcome back to the internet of the early 1990's we all lived on the internet with real IPs, but were protected from firewalls... This whole concept of everyone on a Class C/B/A private subnet thing has only been around for a couple of decades.

The main difference tech people will see is that they can't ping an IPv6 address from memory. mDNS (as in xyz.local) will become the only way to access another machine with any sanity.

Monitoring DNS at home, most services are already mixing (with a preference, but quick fallback from IPv6). So I'd say that the major websites are already primarily accessed via IPv6. You won't notice it.

It'll just take years...

I have IPV6 at home (took some calls to AT&T Customer Support). I don't have it at work, the migration will probably start small network endpoints (phones (apparently t-mobile has already switch), and home networks).

Link local IPV6 is already fairly broadly available - it's the fe80 prefixed address on your ifconfig output. You should be able to ping other ipv6 addresses on your network (*nix to *nix).

Google's IPv6 stats page indicates this too... https://www.google.com/intl/en... has a peculiar comb effect for the last few years. Zooming in seems to give a bit more insight. Google's count of IPv6 connections has a full 1% swing over the weekends vs the week days. Due to IPv6's addressing method, each unique device on your network appears as a unique device on the internet, vs the NATed IPv4 that we all know and love. This would also have an accelerating increase in the number of unique IPs that are visible on the weekend. I know I use more devices over the weekend (chromebook, phone, laptop, table) vs during the week.

Open to other insights, but our homes will be likely IPv6 before our offices are. (Of course aggressive tech companies like google and facebook are likely already IPv6).

Damn, I wish I would have patented that and all its quantum magic...

I noticed that my vertical transmitting antenna often works better if I connect a horizontal wire about the same length as the antenna to ground at its base! The wire isn't connected to the transmitting side of the circuit at all! And how well it works varies depending on the length! Obviously there is some deus ex machina at work here...

Clearly you missed the bit where they invoked quantum mechanics, surely that explains away all the inaccuracies, like the fact you can already buy chip scale dielectric antennas

The thing that I really hate about Innovation Stories is that the reporter invariably doesn't understand what's going on, and invariably is easily convinced that The Obviiously Very Technical People have some very valuable invention.

Marconi's connection to the center tap of a coil with one end not connected worked by broken symmetry? Really? It wasn't just a method of tuning a coil to the correct reactance for a particular frequency?

They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.