I actually doubt JRR Tolkien would disagree with what the estate does...

I agree with your opinion on Jackson's films, but the deal with the films were actually struck with Tolkien himself who, as I recall from Letters, saw two paths to making films out of the books: artistic integrity...or money. And he decided to go with the money. This produced the bad cartoon film (which strangely enough I actually recall more fondly than the Jackson's films but I think that might just be my rose-tinted spectacles.)

Packages are not part of the base system, so it's not so strange that the documentation doesn't refer to the wide-dhcpv6. I have checked now and it was indeed wide I was using. But I have actually disabled it now and using ipv6 autoconf instead.

It appears the FreeBSD packet filter is actually a port of OpenBSD's PF. If nothing's changed, OpenBSD's PF is single-threaded, so if all the box is going to do is to filter packets, more cores won't improve things. I don't know if FreeBSD have threaded their port, or otherwise made performance improvements.

I think a DHCP6 client/server might not be included on the same level as DHCP4, but there absolutely is an option to install a working one, since I'm indeed using it. A quick scan shows the "wide-dhcp6" in packages, but I'm not quite sure if this is the one. I can check later when I get home if you want?

What I meant was that I set up an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel on my openbsd box which then acts as a IPv6 router for my LAN. IPv6 packets are routed to and subjected to the OpenBSD firewall just like IPv4 packets. I also have DHCPv6-server running to deal with computers on the LAN getting proper IPv6 addresses. In other words, my setup sounds pretty similar to what you are asking about. If my ISP offered native IPv6, that would actually simplify things as it would mean one less step as I wouldn't need the tunnel anymore.

OpenBSD does include a DHCP6 package (or maybe it's in ports, I honestly don't remember, but anyway, it works). PF does support IPv6 filters, exactly the same as IPv4 as far as I can discern. As for routing protocols, I have no experience with them, but OpenBGPD does appear to support IPv6.

I have run OpenBSD as my firewall since forever, and have since set up a tunnel to give my LAN IPv6 connectivity. There has been absolutely no problem with IPv6 at all in OpenBSD[*]. Every application I've messed with, from packet filter to tunneling to DHCP to nameserver supports it. Granted my usage is probably very limited still, but my impression is that IPv6 is supported pretty much everywhere that IPv4 is. I can't say how this compares with FreeBSD though, because my experience with it is restricted to a brief laptop install circa 1998 (although, I was briefly considering installing it on a desktop machine this weekend actually!)

[*] Well, actually, one of the remote holes in the default install actually was in the IPv6 implementation, but that was before I set up my tunnel fortunately!

I just tried this, and, except for volume, I can't really say I hear a difference.
What sample rate did you synthesize to and what sample rate is your playback path capable of?
Synthesizing to eg 44.1kHz produces very noticeable low-frequency components.
Are you sure you are not listening to such alias artifacts?

This guy already donated 10 billion yen (~120 million dollars) of his personal money to quake relief as well as all of his earnings until retirement [1]. Perhaps making money is not all that he cares about?

[1] http://guyjin.me/2011/04/04/softbank-ceo-masayoshi-son-donates-usd120-million-to-earthquake-and-tsunami-relief-efforts

You are trying to shift the burden of blame onto me, for some reason, without accepting that you made a mistake, deliberate or not. Sadly, that you won't acknowledge what you did and instead try to blame me for pointing it out makes me think the deception was deliberate. See, you are not contradicting my claim that the report denied your assertion that it was radiation/cancer that decimated the population of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, instead you are trying to divert the argument to other parts of the report. But let's review the problematic original statement:

It is a perfectly obvious implication that you are here representing the report as saying that the low life expectancy is due to cancer contracted by radiation from the Chernobyl power plant accident. Talking about the cancer effects, not only on the population of the Fukushima prefecture and neighbours, but on the population of the whole of Japan, certainly underscores this implication. (And I'm sad that "Fukushima" will inevitably come to mean the nuclear power plant accident rather than the beautiful prefecture that was hitherto famous for its tasty rice...)

But as I showed, the report does not support this implication! But instead of showing that my correction is somehow wrong, you are now arguing that the details, such as what the cause really is, don't matter because the situation as described in the report is pretty darn horrific at any rate, and who can argue with that?

But the details do in fact matter very, very much!

I will take the time to clarify exactly why and my reasons for taking offense at what you did. I will do this entirely for your benefit even though I feel I have no obligation to reveal personal information and background, merely for objecting that the facts didn't support your statement. Nevertheless...

I have family living in a town called Minamisoma about 30km north of the Fukushima #1 power plant, right on the border of the evacuation zone. Unlike most people posting here about the accident, I have driven past that nuclear power station many times on the way to Tokyo (where in fact all the electricity generated by the plant also went, but I digress...)

There has been a lot of misinformation spread through-out this catastrophe, misinformation (to not call it straight out fear-mongering!) that can cause a lot of anxiety for people who are affected by the accident (cf. your own point about the psychological effects of Chernobyl!) Saying that radiation has induced cancer that's killing the population enough to drastically lower the life expectancy in a huge area caused me personal scare, for obvious reasons, and when I found out that it was, in effect, a lie[*], I felt it very necessary to point out that out, not the least for the sake of others who might be equally unduly worried by your statement, and especially since you didn't provide a direct link to the report so that they could quickly check for themselves.

([*] I'm sure you will take offense at this, and say that it makes no differences whether it was indirect effects, such as psychological or economical, rather than direct effects of radiation, but trust me, it makes a big fucking difference to the people who are personally affected by the Fukushima #1 situation and who are already scared about the effects of the radiation!)

Perhaps you are not a fan of nuclear power. If so, that makes two of us. However, I would advice you to not use these deceptive tactics when discussing these matter.

PS. Since you are, for some reason, asking me what is an appropriate quote to use for support about increased cancer risks, I would support the last one you nominated:

I am not claiming to be doing any deep analysis; I am merely criticising your use of the report.

Also, claiming that I am characterising the report as being all about lifestyle factors is a strawman. The report is not all about that, but what is important here is that your quote was indeed all about that! If you wished to make a point about radiation, you should have chosen a more appropriate quote. You did not. That is your fault, not mine.

Well, you can try to spin it and say I'm the one who is ignoring things, but it still remains that it was you who made a claim that the effects of the Chernobyl power plant radiation was a devestatingly low life expectancy for the population of multiple affected countries. But the report, despite the bad things it does mention, does not support any such notion; only your selective quoting made it look that way. Which is exactly what I wanted to point out, especially since you didn't provide any reference beond the title of the report, which might well lead others to simply accept your deceptive summary.

Yes, the report talks about many bad things. But no, these are certainly not all due to the effects of the Chernobyl power plant radiation, especially not the low life expectency, which is clearly identified as being caused by "the combination of poverty, poor diet and living conditions, and lifestyle factors such as tobacco and alcohol use." Trying to imply it's due to radition is dishonest and I will continue to point that out.

Deceptive quoting makes the report seem to imply that the low life expectancy is due to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident whereas the report actually says something else:

"As is true throughout the Former Soviet Union, life expectancy is low not only as compared with Southern and Western Europe, North America and Japan, but also with a number of countries from the developing world. Life expectancy for men in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, for example, is some ten years less than in Sri Lanka, which is one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and is in the middle of a long drawn out war. Overwhelmingly the most important reason for this is the combination of poverty, poor diet and living conditions, and lifestyle factors such as tobacco and alcohol use. These factors may also, to some degree, be reinforced in the affected areas and communities by the psychosocial effects of the accident. Cardiovascular disease and trauma (accidents and poisonings) are the two most common causes of death followed by cancer (this situation is not confined to the Chernobyl affected regions). Most doctors when asked what measures would most improve the health of the population said improved diet and living conditions."