... but it might get you killed in others.

Namecalling cannot change the fact that all those welfare-programs have only increased social stratification.

You may now say: "What a preposterous thing to say, without those welfare programs it would be even worse"

Not so. Government expenses go to private interests. Obama wants to give a couple of billion to some friends and Romney surely wants to wants to pay back Goldman Sachs for years of support (and in fact, Obama was also supported by Goldman Sachs - wow, only a "fucking retarded loonie" could possibly think that maybe all those millions are not going to starving babies?)

The bigger the government, the richer types like Romney, Soros or Bernanke will get.

You believe every scare-story that some NYT-columnist tells you, right?

I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around.

Yeah, that's why representative democracy does not work while direct democracy does.

The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.

I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.

When Clinton reduced social spending while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?

So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.

Wait a minute - wasn't Obama supposed to fix all that? What about all these "Jesus was also a community-organizer" - stuff?

How is it possible that Obama's America becomes very much similar to the governments that Obama supports abroad?

Why does Obama start more wars all around the world than Bush, yet nobody seems to care?

Oh, and by the way, any moron who still believes that it's all the fault of R/D and that D/R would fix it: R+D are merely circus factions, both Romney and Obama are deep in the pocket of the banks, just like Bush was. And the media will do everything to prevent Ron Paul from winning.

Sorry, should of course be the "IT-department", not "IP-department"...

One would think that with all that IPv6-propaganda, that such IPv6-only (please remember the "only"-part here) services would be all over the airwaves.

Surely you can name a couple of those?

Your naivety seems to be as large as those of the IPv6-designers.

People are not as stupid as you may believe. They will not just take an IPv6 address and leave out 99% of their customers and wait years/decades until IPv6 happens. No, they will in some way get an IPv4 address, even if (gasp, oh noes) that involves paying some modest fee (which will be probably still be lower than what a domain costs today) or they will work around the problem using NAT. No matter how ugly it's going to be, after some time the bugs are ironed out and it will work (unlike IPv6, which even Google can get to work on all their services).

So you are fully correct when you say that many people are "going to start having problems", but unfortunately IPv6 is not a solution to the problems, because shutting out 99% of users is not a solution, period.

In other words, even the ugliest NAT-workaround is BETTER than IPv6, because IPv6 is only for less than 1% of users.

Yes, in real life IPv4 is better, because it does what you want (reach all users), while IPv6 is worse because even though it may be architecturally cleaner it is useless for real-world services.

Virgin Media needs millions of internal IP-addresses in a single company-wide network that must not be segmented? What for?

My guess is that the IP-department (which often breed the typical we-must-upgrade-everything-to-the-latest-verstion-number nerds) have convinced the pointy-haired-bosses there that they absolutely must have IPv6 if only to have something to do.

I've worked for an international company with branches in Europe, Africa and China - the larger a company is, the more it resembles a Dilbert-cartoon.

Yes, I'll be "holding out" with over 99% of users out there.

People, there will never be a IPv6 transition, period.

The crazy idea of the IPv6-designers was to expect all admins to request and configure new addresses - completely utopian.

Yes, NAT is not pretty. Yes, IPv6 would allow for a much cleaner network. But, no, that is not enough to push anybody to IPv6. There are no IPv6-ONLY services, therefore no benefit of running IPv6 on a client (regardless of dualstack). There are also no IPv6-ONLY clients, therefore no benefit of running IPv6 on a server (regardless of dualstack).

The alternative to IPv6 to work around the problem with NAT. And in fact that is the only way, because setting up IPv6 is useless because less than 1% use it while setting up a NAT-based solution, no matter how ugly, will get used and will get you some return of investment. And you know what? Because such NAT-based solutions are created everyday right now, they make IPv4 even more entrenched and any IPv6-transition even more complicated than it would have been before.

Oh, and on a private network, which is behind a NAT anyway, there is even less reason for IPv6 - Yes, I do have enough 10.0.0.0 addresses for my home network.

Actually, it did. Victorian England was a lot safer than today's England.

From here:

"The number of indictable offences per thousand population in

1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1."