The mystery continues.
Although, it seems to me that -- if they had used both recieving dishes at the same time, we might have gotten some useful stereo images. Why didn't they do that?
Back when we came up with IP4, Many timeshare computers had 1Meg of ram, or less and 16 bit registers.-- and what home computers there were rarely had more than 32K of ram or 8 bit registers. The choice was: 32bit numbers that pushed the capabilities of many computers of the time, variable-length addreses which would stretch the programmers of the time(and have most of the memory-hogging disadvantages of longer fixed-length addresses), or longer fixed-length addresses that would make life hard on both computers and programmers of the time.
The decision was made to go with 32bit numbers knowing that we would have to go through this protocol-change hell, but at that (this) time, the larger addresses wouldn't be such a stretch for the newer computers.
Yes, the newm longer addresses are a pain, but you rarely need to type them in, and you'll have no real problem remembering the ones that you really really need... (put them in your phone... that's what smart phones are for).
Yes, IP6 addresses are (or can be) longer, but you only need to remember a couple of them,,, and when you delete the middle 0's with
You can port forward anything that you want to face the web.
That presumes that you have a public IP address that you can port forward from. The problem with IP4 is that we don't have enough addresses for everyone to have one and now even Microsoft is running out of public IP4 addresses.
My fridge does NOT need to be on the web. Ever. That was a dumb idea then and it's worse now. Why let the world (NSA) hack into your life?
I have 1 public facing ip and my whole house behind it. Why would i want 20 devices with their asses hanging out on the web?
The fact that you have a couple of billion Public facing IP6 addresses doesn't prevent you from NATting your home network. You can NAT such that most of your home machines go to b1a:b1a:b1a::1 except for the ones that want/need a public IP address.
You can then NAT the machines which wants a public IP address such that each machine has a unique public address that has nothing to do with it's private address.
That way, the most that an attacker will be able to figure out is that you have 5 machines that want a public IP6 address -- but they'll have no idea what the actual addresses are inside of the network.
In other words, if you use it with proper imagination, a billion public addresses can make your network MORE opaque, rather than less.
In other words, unless you're NATting an entire building behind a single public IP address, you're not likely to be running short of connections for a reasonably well designed NAT setup.
From earlier comments, it sounds like the journalist who wrote the article confused the two (either wilfully or neglectfully).
This is too close to the support model offered by pinko-commie Open Source and Free software long-haired smellies.
For more information, please see the MCSCF (Microsoft Customer Support Community Forum).
The problem was found because the code was Open Source. If it had been closed source, then the bug would still be secret. To the extent to which the bug was recognized (or commissioned) and exploited by the likes of the NSA, it would have probably remained secret for a lot longer.
According to Microsoft's EULA, for example, finding -- much less fixing -- such a bug is illegal. If the NSA had paid them to put such a bug into the Windows version of SSL, then it would probably remain unpatched for years after someone had pointed it out to them as an exploitable bug.,, and anybody openly reporting such a bug, even after 6 months of trying to get MS to fix it, would be roundly criticized for disclosing the bug 'prematurely'.
Even then, it would probably not be fixed by Microsoft until at least the next monthly bug release cycle (or even the one after that.
With the code being Open Source, the problem got fixed faster than yesterday. Period. If the OpenSSL people refused to fix it, then it would have been forked.