Even an improperly tuned carburetor can still do a good enough job. A few percent CO in the exhaust and the engine still runs fine. At least at the legal speeds, I am sure that the carburetor would need to be tuned for the current air temperature, engine temperature, altitude if I wanted to race and get the most power from the engine, but since the top speed of my car exceeds the speed limit even if the carburetor adjustment is less than optimal, the requirements are a bit less strict.

For some reason some aircraft engines still use carburetors.

Split the /64 into smaller networks -- SLAAC no longer works -- Android devices have to be manually configured with static IPs since they do not support DHCPv6.

But don't private ASs and Provider Independent addresses conflict with the "neat routing tables" goal when I take my AS to another ISP which may be in another country?

Software, compared to mechanical parts, does not rust or wear out. Write it properly once and it will work properly forever.

Pass a law that requires all car software to be in a mask ROM and you will see the decline in bugs as the cost of updates increase. The software will be written more carefully and there will be less of it.

Just like my old tape deck or CD player or TV does not need updates (because that would be done by replacing a chip) but a new TV or Bluray player does.

The turn signal cancelling in my car is mechanical. I dislike heat so I will put in AC in my 1982 car (the most important and difficult to obtain part already ordered with $400 shipping from the US). Heater is also useful to defrost the windshield or when it's -30C outside.

However, I do not need my car to be controlled by software. A carburetor does a good enough job of supplying air/fuel mixture to the engine and does not need software.

My daily commuter is a 1982 MB W123 modified to run on LPG (LPG costs 38% of what gasoline costs here). No software at all.

Rust is a problem but so far I have no problems keeping the car patched. The engine still works, it did not need an overhaul yet.

In case this car is no longer in serviceable condition I am going to buy a different car of a similar year of manufacture. In case the law prevents me I am going to buy a car that has the least amount of electronics in it and then try to increase security by separating hackable components. I do not need WiFi or Bluetooth, so that would be disabled quite quickly.

There is always a reason to everything. Why did a car run over a pedestrian? Because the driver was drunk. Why the driver was driving drunk? He was not drunk enough and wanted to buy some more.

And cars have no security because security costs money. Unless the penalty for having a buggy code is higher than the cost of security, cars will have buggy code.

However, the problem is that by connecting the engine to the same bus as the radio you allow the radio to have control over the engine, or at least this is how it is now.

The radio is built to lower security standards (it's a radio, even if someone hacks it they won't do any real damage), which is OK, but then it needs to be separated from the engine or brakes or steering (where a hacker could do real damage). Have a firewall or something. Just like you don't allow your web server root access to the backups or some other critical server.

telnet car-ip
login: root
password: admin

root@car ~# service collision-avoidance stop
root@car ~# service braking stop
root@car ~# throttle_set 100%
root@car ~#
Connection lost.

I have a 1982 car - while it has electronics (it even has electronic ignition), it does not have software. The radio is a completely separate unit and only connected to the power of the rest of the car.

The car is modified to run on LPG and since LPG is 37.5% the price of gasoline, the car gets "money efficiency" (euros/100km) comparable to much newer gasoline cars.

I manage the networks of several ISPs (the usually have several /22 allocations) and the company I work for (a single /23) and can remember quite a few IPs, even though the ends are not the same (say, a cacti server IP is x.y.z.5 for one ISP and a.b.c.192 for another). That's usually because I use the IPs to connect instead of DNS names, since I can type 93.184.216.34 faster than www.example.com and the IP works even if the DNS server has failed.

I remember some time ago in /. somebody arguing with me that IPv6 does not and should not have NAT because NAT is evil and the sole purpose of IPv6 is to get rid of it.

DHCPv6 works, unless you have Android devices (the point of TFA).

How about "Internal WiFi" and "Guest WiFi (internet access only)"? Currently this is done with a separate vlan and subnet for the guest WiFi. It also benefits greatly from dynamic address assignment.

IPv4 IPs are much easier to remember than IPv6 IPs.

You have to use static IPs if you want to split the singe /64 you got from your ISP into subnets, since SLAAC stops working then. Well, either that or NAT.

I really like how the IPv6 proponents also propose to give more control to the ISP.

With IPv4 I can:
1. Split my allocated address space into however many subnets (down to /30s) I want.
2. Use NAT to either have more internal IPs than public ones or to mask/redirect traffic.
3. Use NAT to keep the internal IPs constant even if the public IPs change (ISP changes or something).
4. If I have my own AS, I can jump between ISPs while keeping my IPs, this allows the use of multiple ISPs for redundancy.

Now, with IPv6 things look better with pretty much unlimited addresses, however:
1. If I have at least one Android device, I either have to set up static IPs or ask the ISP for more subnets, as if /64 could not be split into smaller subnets. Oh, right, the devicewants to put its MAC addressas part of the IP - yay for tracking? Oh and why the ISP should give me more subnets for free? So, I guess I'd better start putting money into the suitcase...
2. No NAT means the internal IPs change if the ISP decides so or I change ISPs. DNS is not an option since it can fail just as well as DHCP can. Also, even with DNS it would be a PITA to change all the records to point to new IPs. Also, firewall configurations need to be updated.
3. Private ASs are discouraged, apparently they mess up the routing tables. So, now I do not have redundancy and the ISP can cause real problems for me because of #2. Or I have to work out a three sided deal between me and two competing ISPs. I guess I'd better find another suitcase for the money...