The thing is... if the guys at cyanogenmod had a ROM for the LUMIA, maybe I could've bougth one, even if there was no Nokia-native Android. Problem now is... nokia hw is MS... and I don't feel fine on giving MS more lawyer-power than they already have.

I totally agree. And also I guess people is less inclined to buy the same thing again because they release it under a new media, when they can get it "cheaper" some place else. The hole equation does not make sense.

Say I have a DVD, paid some 20 bucks. The "industry" is saying that is loosing lots of money because others copy the DVD without paying. Conclusion, so DVD Movie product cost= Movie rights cost + DVD media costs. Movie rights should be a lot you say, as other people are offering even similar packaging for much less, if they don't pay "Movie rights" portion of the equation.

But then it comes BluRay. Now I want my movie library in glorious HiDef. You'll think a BluRay Movie = Movie Rights + BluRay media costs. As you already own the Movie Rights for home use, you'll think you can get a better price. Well, you don't! Movie Rights now seems like a cheap thing that costs 0, as the "Industry" wants me to pay full fare again.

So, guess they shouldn't have it both ways.

Nokia needs people buying their phones. My family has 6 Nokia phones (3 symbian). Our first buy after the announcement has already been a Droid. It's cool with Nokia, but MS? Thanks, but no thanks.

In the team I work in, there are some 5 E71. All are thinking about other brands after Nokia commited suicide (Again, I work with DBA's, Sysadmins, Network Admins. NO WAY they're buying MS *).

That's great!. But considering symbian had about 10% market share last time I checked (and going down), MS some 2% maybe? then it's great someone is downloading all that!. Now, they need people to buy their phones, and that's were the hard part comes. Even old nokia users (such as myself) see nokia-wp as something to stay away from, and people already on other platforms don't feel as going back to WP (even more Samsung or HTC). So, the actual question is, what's the market they're after?

Most all of which support an adequate version of dd-wrt (WRT54GL's, and up).

Hello I worked with companies with networks of +5000 desktops. The "public IP address" fear doesn't come from the fact that the device will be publically accessible, but that their action can be "publically recorded". One of the selling points of IPv6 is that you can have your own IP address. Good. Now, Companies such as [google, ms that provide advertising and services like webmail and talk to identify you] will be able to track your IPv6 address and map it to the few users of your desktop/laptop on your company. Now, imagine, what possibilities does that open?

Yes, there are cookies to track a certain users with a certain browser. But you can delete them. Your whole company might look to the external world as a few IPv4's addresses now (and you could do the same on IPv6 using application proxies, but that just adds costs). Now... can you do the same with all of the browsers of all of the users on your desktop and even succeed if you are getting a few ip addresses? and if not, then what possibilities are available to those tracking you?

I want NAT as my customers wants NAT. Let's do this: Let's agree on a protocol that allows you to enable NAT if you so desire, and disable if you so desire. We'll be both happy!. I'm sure that a protocols that enables both types of users will have good success.

I'll hijack a 2003 post:

One of the primary uses of NAT is to provide provider (and registry) independence. It also provides a way to get around ISP restrictions on the number of devices customers can connect to a network.

Off the top of my head, I believe as long as any of the following are true: - you must renumber if you change service providers - renumbering requires any effort whatsoever from the end user - renumbering interrupts services in any way - requesting addresses requires any formal process or procedures

you will have NAT, regardless of whether it is IPv4 or IPv6.

Attempting to legislate behavior through non-binding standards activities contrary to customer desires is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, there are fierwalls!. Only thing,a lot of people want them to keep operating in the same way (Fw + NAT). They don't want to get assigned an IPv6 address that can be tracked at the IP level and mapped to a specific user or set of them.