and itunes and amazon.

Movies and ebooks OTOH are generally not available in unemcumbered form.

If you want to run mac OS X and you don't want to violate the EULA you have to buy apple hardware.

This means that while PCs from vendor X and PCs from vendor Y are largely interchangable PCs and macs are less so despite using the same core components.

Reverse load balancers could be an option here if/when IPv4 prices rise to a level where the IPv4 address is a significant part of the cost of a VM.

While obviously literally true afaict services other than http(s) and mail are the exception not the rule.

Just because you and I don't like the implications of something doesn't make it unfeasible.

Sure.

For better or worse the internet lacks any strong central authority. If it had one maybe we would have had ubiquotous deployment of IPv6 in the 2000s allowing for an IPv4 sunset now.

That hasn't happened though, there are still loads of clients and servers that are IPv4 only (including the one we are discussing this on).

So the choice now is not between "deploy horrible mechanisms to keep IPv4 on life support" and "deploy ipv6". The choice now is between "deploy horrible mechanisms to keep IPv4 on life support without deploying IPv6" and "horrible mechanisms to keep IPv4 on life support and also IPv6".

While i'm in favour of the latter denying that the former is an option is just self-delusion.

True

Nowhere near it, there are loads of public IPs that have only one or a handful of systems behind them. How many systems you can put behind a public IP will depend on the details of what they are doing and the details of the NAT implementation but I would think 100 machines per internet IP is more than feasiable.

On the server side https hosting traditionally needed one IP per certificate (with each certificate covering either one hostname or a small group of hostnames) but SNI removes that need and with windows XP and andriod 2.x gradually fading using SNI starts to look like a more and more reasonable option.

I don't like the world that ISP level IPv4 nat would give but pretending it's not a feasible soloution is silly.

The main differences tech people will see.

1: NAT in ipv6 is strongly discouraged, so public addresses will be assgined on the lan (in addition to link local addresses). Better hope that unstable public addresses don't accidently end up in configuration files etc leading to things breaking when your ISP changes your block.
2: network administrators will see a lot of duplicate work as every subnet will have both v4 and v6 for the forseeable future.
3: it will be interesting to see the impact on internet routing table size. On the one hand there will be a lot less legacy cruft in the IPv6 table and the larger address space gives the option of expanding a companies block rather than given them a second one. On the other hand I could see a lot of medium sized buisnesses who currently use private IP addresses and NAT requesting PI space. And of course the IPv4 and IPv6 internets will be running in paralell for the forseable future.

Big content providers have been enabling IPv6 but none have done what the GGP post proposed and disabled IPv4.

For a 200 million dollar developement that's a terrible ROI. 0.7% and that is before expenses. A more reasonable 5% per annum yeild (before expenses) woudl require charging $3720 per month.

Is a $3720 per month rental considered "affordable" in that area?

You can't undo prison time already served but assuming the screwup comes to light before the person dies you can at least release them to live out the rest of the life as a free person. You could also compensate them financially though I don't know if any country actually does that.

Afaict the main reason the USA still has the death penalty is to bully people into plea bargins for life imprisonment (and no I don't think this is a good thing, I think the whole plea bargin system is abhorrent).

The summary is that they are introducing a new http header, this can be used to tell the browser to automatically use https instead of http to request resources used by the page. Thus avoiding "mixed content" warnings without requiring the website operator to go through the whole page (and potentially things like stylesheets referenced by the page) changing urls to https.

Be aware that some vendors list a product on thier web site as if it were a current production product when really it's at the "we have a few samples and will let you have one if we like you and/or you pay us a load of money" stage.

The rockets were basically empty at the time of landing. I would think a booster full of fumes would give something similar to a "hollywood explosion". Big fireball but relatively little bang.

If paypal could have shut down paypalsucks.com by "lawyering the shit out of them" don't you think they would have done so by now. I don't see why paypal.sucks would be any different.

The point is with expensive domains many people will chose not to buy a domain, they will then end up using their hosting providers domain and therefore locked in. I do not see being locked in as a good thing.

OTOH I think allowing people to have freedom to move hosting provider for their email and for their personal/hobby site without changing address on each move or more than doubling the cost was a very good thing.

UTF-8 is a highly elegant and simple format. I'm certainly not aware of anything anyone has done to make it "extra complicated".

Now unicode itself is massively complicated but afaict that is mostly a reflection of the fact that some human languages refuse to fit nicely into the model of "a sequence of characters placed next to each other from left to right".