Given the size of usb sticks. Searching a coin box would be reasonable.
You still haven't show why a commercial operator should require a certificate when a hobbyist doesn't for the same class of drone. If a class of drone requires equipment to be fitted it should be independent of whether the drone is commercially operated or not.
The commercial operating certificate is to protect the fare paying passengers by ensuring that you have the requisite experience.
Last time I looked drones were not carrying passengers. The two situations are in no way comparable.
Which is why you also put in a speed camera on such lights as well as a red light camera with a big sign saying "Red Light - Speed Camera". All new red light cameras are both speed and red light camera here with the old red light cameras being retrofitted with speed timing loops.
If you speed up to make the light you get a speeding fine. Traffic actually obeys the speed limits as there are enough of these to make it a pain to speed up and then slow down for the intersections.
Bridges have massive error tolerances built into the design. A single bolt/rivet failing won't bring down a bridge. Bridges are designed to cope with these sorts of failures.
Software as almost zero tolerance for errors. A single bit error can destroy a program.
Firstly use ULA for local stability.
As for DNS, UPDATE + TSIG works with just about all name servers as does UPDATE + SIG(0).
Mac's already support UPDATE + TSIG.
255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255 vs ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
Which would you rather type, read etc.
Comcast has over 25% of their network IPv6 enabled as of November last year. This is much more that "3 cities".
As for taking back IPv4 addresses, that has to be the most ludicrous thing I have heard. There is a huge amount of IPv4 only content out there which you need IPv4 addresses to reach. Now you can make the consumer IPv6 only by use NAT64 + DNS64 to reach this content but you still need IPv4 addresses on the public side of the NAT64. Additionally NAT64 breaks functionality you get with having direct, unshared, IPv4 connectivity.
About 3.5% of Google's traffic is IPv6. This is more than double what it was last year at this time. If the grow continues on this curve we will be at 10% within a year and a half. This sort of traffic is more than enough for sites to enable IPv6.
If you can enable IPv6 at home over 50% of typical home usage is IPv6 (Google and FaceBook). There is no reason for Consumer ISP's to not enable IPv6 as there is enough volume to make it worthwhile.
IPv6 was designed to co-exist with IPv4. You give new hardware a IPv6 address as well as a IPv4 address and after 10 or so years all your machines have both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and there are basically no IPv4 only machines left. This would have worked if CPE vendors shipped IPv6 capable routers and ISP
enabled IPv6 on the customer links.
Today almost all the cell phones and general purpose computers support both IPv4 and IPv6. Linux, Windows, MacOS, iOS, *BSD, Solaris, Android all support IPv6. What hasn't happened is turning on IPv6 on the ISP links and that is mainly but not solely due to lack of IPv6 in home routers.
Back in 1992 we would have run out except for CIDR and NAT which staved off the exhaustion 20+ years.
People acted on the initial warnings. I was actually running IPv4 networks back then. We upgraded routers and hosts to support CIDR.
More efficient use of addresses was put into play so less addresses were wasted CIDR. By sizing the net mask to the number of hosts on the link we wasted less addresses. Address allocations strategies also changed to assume CIDR was available and you couldn't get more addresses unless you could prove you were properly utilising the addresses you had. If you didn't upgrade your machines to support CIDR you were out of luck if you need new addressees.
Stop gap measures were also put into play like NAT.
Work also started on a replacement for IPv4 which was capable of supporting everyone. That replacement is IPv6.
CIDR and NAT are no longer sufficient to keep IPv4 running.
And of those item which are not available, how many are not there due to new hardware (other than memory and cpu) and how many are not there due to marketing?
FaceTime requires a forward facing camera.
Hearing aid support requires new hardware.
LTE, HSUPA, nor 802.11n new hardware.
iCloud photo integration marketing.
Find My Phone marketing
Shared Photo Stream marketing
Turn-by-turn navigation marketing
Offline Reading List marketing
Air Drop marketing
Apple want you to buy new hardware. I've got no problem with them not adding new features. If you want the new feature well and good go buy them but not having it doesn't make you horribly obsolete. All of the new stuff falls into the "nice to have" category for 99% of people and given a choice between a 3gs and 5 I would say buy a 5.
Just because Windows didn't have a IP stack 20 years ago, didn't mean you couldn't get OS with a IP stack to run on the hardware. If you look and most operating systems lots of it hasn't changed in 20+ years. 20+ year old bugs are still being found.
Except they are treating the packets differently by allowing vastly different percentages of them the be dropped over different peering links. If the packet is destined for their network and they have control over the link then the packet should be treated equally to all other packets destined for their network. They have (partial) control over the bandwidth of the peering link.
The same also applies to packets leaving their network.
Actually I do expect the desktop to last 10 years. I've got desktop machines that are 15 years old that are still functioning fine for the purpose they are put to. They don't need the extra speed. They chew up a bit of power compared to the more modern hardware that could do the same job.
I had a cable modem that lasted around 12 years. It only got replace this year because it started to stop holding sync. Presumably some capacitor failed in it. I upgraded to a new modem which supported a newer version of DOCSIS. That said I didn't need to upgrade as I didn't need the updated functionality.
As for smart phones becoming obsolete. Most smart phones already have more compute power than is needed. It's nice to have the newer radios and with them faster connections. But apart from some apps that are specifically designed for iOS 7, a 3gs will run everything fine. It has the compute power needed. The screen resolution is good enough for 90% of the population. This is ~5 year old product being first released in 2009. It will do what 90% of the population want to do. It's also still receiving security updates. I applied one over the air (WiFi) within the last month.
The household has iPhone 3gs, 4 and 5 so I've had a chance to evaluate all of them. We max out on the available memory when we buy them. They get replaced due to physical damage. The last 3gs got replaced because it had been dropped to many time and connector #4 would no longer stay seated. My daughter got my wife's 4 and she got a new 5. This was a repair or replace due to physical damage. The phone itself was still capable of doing everything my daughter wanted to do on it.
I reject the contention that in 5 years a smart phone purchased today will be horrendously obsolete because 5 year old phones today are not horrendously obsolete.
Total BS. Phones should last 20 years. The old land line ones last 20+ years. The only thing in a modern phone that doesn't have a 20+ year life span is the battery and that is not through not trying.
As for the 2 years that is the time to pay off the phone in instalments, not when it is supposed to be unusable any more. Yes, phone companies would like you to get a new phone every 2 years as that locks you into them for 2 more years.
As for fixing bugs in the OS most of the time a bug that exists in one version of the OS exist in all versions of the OS. Once the initial diagnoses is done back porting is usually a relatively low cost apart from the regression testing. That said there does become times where back porting becomes expensive. This is usually when a new feature is in the same area of code where the old bug is.
Now in sane countries there are consumer laws about replacement parts needing to be available from the manufacture for reasonable lengths of time for any product being sold. The length of time differs depending upon the product and the price etc. For cars 10-20 years is not unreasonable. Spares are needed to be available well after the warrantee expires.
OS and application bug fixes are no more than getting a spare parts and should be available for similar lengths of time. The only reason they aren't is that consumer law hasn't caught up yet.