Perhaps, many within the IETF understand that NATs exist to generate more address space and they also provide some firewall-like security features. Perhaps some of them might even think that when the additional address space needs are unnecessary, the use of NATs as a firewall is also unnecessary. You might even just use, I don't know, something that is explicitly a firewall and not bother NATing.

If you really want security, having a device which functions explicitly for security might be better than, "Hey, I'm doing this NAT thing because I want more address space at home instead of that stinking single static (most people dynamic, sigh) IP my ISP is giving me. But now that I have 18 quintillion IP addresses at home I can't possibly get rid of NAT and use a firewall that blocks incoming connections because, ..., Bueller?"

My googlefu may be poor. I'd like to think that since I did this a few months ago, it has become more available since then. But it could be that my searching just kind of sucked. I had two problem though. One is that of the places saying they support DNSSEC, I had a very difficult time figuring out what that meant (they'll let you enter records on there site, you can have records in your own DNS (duh), or you can actually upload your DS records to your parent in some fashion). For the most part it looked like I would have to register domains at registrars to find out.

Time (maybe even laziness) was the other issue, particularly after a few conversations with the help contacts at different places. I figured I didn't want to spend the time to go from one person who has no idea what DNSSEC is to the next, to another, to finally someone who knows what it is but tells me they don't support it. I was pretty discouraged. Godaddy was the first one I found that had online instruction about what they did (upload DS records using a web based tool) so I went with them. But I figured there must be other choices. It didn't occur to me to ask slashdot at the time. But it did when the godaddy buyout came up.

This is good to know. When I looked at dyndns a few months ago, I was unable to find away to upload DS records to my parent. In fact, this appeared to me to be a registrar that would only support DNSSEC if it managed the DNS (which would already put it ahead of most at the time). I'm hoping this is a fairly recent change and it wasn't just my failure to figure it out at the time. I was a bit disappointed too, because I really like dyndns. It seems to me to be one of the more professional registrars (more interested in being a good registrar than in trying up-sell everything).

I have no points to mod up the parent, but I would like to ask the same question.

Does any other registrar support DNSSEC?

I've looked at register.com, 1and1, and dyndns, but godaddy was the only one that supported DNSSEC (and it was even simple to configure).

I don't really like defending the police. There are many cases of abuse. But this is a bad example. The Asian-style vegetable peeler in this case was in the shape of a cleaver with a 6" blade (10" overall) at the bottom and a second peeling blade in the middle. A picture I found of it was here:

http://protectsanjose.blogspot.com/2009/09/rose-by-any-other-name.html

An 88 pound woman could severely injure and/or kill two grown men with that. IIRC, she was coming at them with it held over her head. If someone was coming at me like that, I'd consider my life at risk. Now, I don't know what happened before that. I.e., police seem to have a need to 'dominate' any situation and I could imagine that behavior making an agitated person more agitated. There may have been a way to handle the situation leading up to the shooting better (I just don't know). But once she was coming at them with that thing, I can easily understand them thinking their life was in danger.

...

Yes, got to www.ietf.org. Become active in that organization and try to start a work group (or find one where this RFC would be applicable), write and submit your RFC. Of course, the main problems: no one is implementing it at ISPs, no one is implementing in hardware, compatibility issues, ISPs won't implemented until they have too (i.e. they believe they lose money without it or believe they will make more money with it), everyone one and Dilbert's mother will have an idea of what to add / change in your proposal before anyone accepts it and actually does any of the above. If you're extremely successful, you end up with a bastardized IPv4 that will take longer for anyone to use than IPv6 (i.e. which is already defined and available in modern devices), does less, and has a much smaller address space than IPv6. I'm not thinking it would be a big win.

If you want IPv6 before lame, slow ISPs finally get it, try using tunnels through someone like,

http://tunnelbroker.net/

I've been using Hurricane Electric to tunnel IPv6 for years and it works well.

Interesting, the oddball I would have picked is the one above that does not have a person actively doing something to second person that the second person doesn't want.

FWIW considering we're fairly far off topic at this point and of course the 'I am Spartacus' line is a Hollywood invention. But Spartacus was assumed to have died in the final battle without his body being found/known. His 'I am Spartacus' followers that lived were not very lucky either, six thousand of the slave army that Spartacus led were crucified after the battle (and placed all along the main drag into Rome). I don't think they (the man?) had any qualms about dealing with large groups of 'anonymous' people, even in the Bronze Age.

Not the GP, but it does dehumanize you. Try saying this,

I threw that product in the trash when I was done with it.
I threw Mary in the trash when I was done with her.

Unless you're a sociopath, the second one should have some serious negative connatations. Although I would agree that being a 'product' might not be all bad. It may be a trade off that's worth it. I would argue that generally the productising of humans is not transparent. The majority of people being treated that way don't realise it, or its full implications, and often don't have a choice whether to be treated that way or not. It is inherently flawed and bad for society unless it is very carefully done.

I can see what you mean by waste, 'eliminate wasteful government jobs programs' (although when that is a very tiny part of the federal budget, by itself it won't do much, military, SocSec and medicaid/medicare are the really big items). But since it's our government going bankrupt, I don't think 'increasing incomes' = 'cut taxes' will do what you think it will do. Ever time we've tried it in the past 30 years, government debt goes up, median income goes down. Our government loses and the only people that gain are people in the top %5-%10 income bracket (and the only big gains are in the top %1). To me it sounds like the building of a crappy surf society where most of us lose.

Um, how in the world is an IT guy making a Star Trek reference surprising? Why would an educated Arab making a comment referencing one of the most famous Arab poets (Kahlil Gibran) be surprising? (I've read through 'The Prophet', it's a poetry book that has as much to do with Muslim extremism as Shakespeare). I think you might need to take the aluminium hat off and/or come out from under the bridge and relax a little bit.

Surely, in the big scheme of things, Osama's death really doesn't matter that much. Don't take the mediatainment as seriously as it thinks you should.

Exactly, I think a better 'fix' would be to remove or at least limit the money involved in getting elected. As long as money is the main motivator (because $ does = votes), politicians will have to spend the majority of the their time seeking donations instead of legislating and US politics will continue down the plutocracy path. That said, I don't know what the best way to do this would be: enforced spending limits?, public financing?, enforced receiving limits?, something else?, some combo?