Or maybe it's just now made it to the English-language media. Here's an documentary from 2008 in Chinese about the kid. It turns out his night vision is a bit better than normal, but it's not that much better. The doctor says he probably has a form of ocular albinism (which is known to cause both sensitivity to bright light, and slightly improved night vision).

It's not difficult to update a simple file/DB entry/whatever to add more characters to the blacklist. Include a little util to parse the UnicodeData file and automatically blacklist all control characters. But even if you wanted to go with a whitelist instead of a blacklist, there's no reason for the whitelist to be as small as it currently is. And then there's what I assume is a Slashcode bug where non-ASCII characters that are in the whitelist don't come through properly. I've seen numerous posts where a stray character gets included. I don't feel like looking for examples right now, but I don't think people are all making the same consistent typos.

Almost none of those are actually IPv6-only sites... they're IPv6-only DNS records (i.e., AAAA with no A) for sites that are available on both IPv4 and IPv6.

• Google IPv6: I think we all know that Google is available over IPv4
• Test My IPv6: a test site, but even that is available in an IPv4 version
• Facebook IPv6: and we all know Facebook is available over IPv4 too
• bin6.it: OK, this does appear to be an IPv6-only site
• ipv6.cyups.com: this isn't even an IPv6-only DNS record, much less an IPv6-only site. ipv6.cyups.com has address 173.245.60.44, ipv6.cyups.com has address 173.245.60.121, ipv6.cyups.com has IPv6 address 2400:cb00:2048:1::adf5:3c2c, ipv6.cyups.com has IPv6 address 2400:cb00:2048:1::adf5:3c79
• Zone403.eu: LOL, this one is even more of a failure... it's IPv4-only; there's no AAAA record at all!
• onet.pl: just change the ipv6 to www for the v4 site
• Plurk: same--change ipv6 to www

I could go on, but you get the picture... it looks like there are only 2 IPv6-only sites on that list.

Probably nothing. Nobody's gonna force you off of IPv4 anytime soon--and probably never. The main reason for adding IPv6 support (note: not switching to IPv6) is for the billions of people who aren't currently on the Internet, but will be getting Internet access over the next decade.

However, a violin made by a skilled luthier in China is going to sound quite good--in the same class as violins made in Europe, yet significantly cheaper. Search the web for Chinese violins, and you'll find a number of people quite pleased with their Made in China violins. For example, see this thread.

Which bug would that be? The investigation found no evidence of any bug--the causes of the unintended acceleration were found to be "improperly installed floor mats, sticky pedals, and driver error."

What, does it include its own implementation of TCP that uses raw sockets or something? No? Then it must be using the TCP/IP implementation that comes with the OS it's running on. SPDY isn't some tweaked non-standard version of TCP/IP--it's a tweaked non-standard version of HTTP (or perhaps a layer between HTTP and TCP, depending on how you look at things).

The king doesn't have any political power; Thailand's a constitutional monarchy, and like the other constitutional monarchies in the world, the king's involvement in government basically consists of presiding over various ceremonies and rubber-stamping what Parliament sends his way. The people who can get rid of the law like its power too much to do so... and my personal impression as a Thai (living in the US) is that a lot of the Thai people approve of the law too--the vast majority of Thais revere the king, and many think he should be legally protected.

FYI, here's an informative/interesting article from Time magazine: What's Behind Thailand's Lèse Majesté Crackdown?

tl;dr: it's used as a political tool to silence/jail one's enemies--while the law has been around forever, prosecutions skyrocketed after the 2006 coup that ousted the prime minister as the different political parties fight for power. The king himself has publically stated that he doesn't support the lese majeste law, and no member of the royal family has ever filed a lese majeste charge.

Sorry bro, the post really is at -1, Offtopic. Deal with it.