The differences are :
1) A single static ip address in ipv4 can be either a single device or a NAT gateway. In ipv6 it is guaranteed to be a single device.
2) The perception that since a static ipv6 address is just one of the possibilities out of a 64bit subnet, that this renders address scanning useless. This perception is blatantly false, as without address randomisation you leave "footprints" everywhere you go hence the privacy extensions. Who needs to scan for your address when you leave it wherever you go ?

The current implementations of ipv6 leaves you the choice between security and privacy - you cannot have both.
If you choose security you cannot even have plausible deniability by running an open wifi as all ipv6 addresses are unique.
If on the other hand you choose privacy, then you cannot implement a default deny firewall as this would require a whitelist listing all of the allowed ipv6 addresses - something that you cannot provide if you are randomising your ip address as per the privacy rfc.

I will wait until someone figures out how to do both before I consider going live with ipv6.

You have far more confidence in your firewall than I have. One slip in the coding, one unchecked buffer is all that it takes for it to be breached.

Privacy.
http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfc/rfc3041.txt

Those are secrets that have no existence outside of my network. Unlike IP addresses. I believe you are mistaken in equating them.

And what prey tell should I do for my PC ? Set a static ipv6 address to be entered into the whitelist ?

Pull the other one it's got bells on.

Security though obscurity is no security at all.

For every website or service you encounter on the internet you have to provide an address to which replies can be sent.

Who needs to port scan ?

Port scanning is not even as difficult as was first believed : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7hq2q4jQYw

Address randomisation does not even begin to solve the problem, in fact it makes it worse. How can my firewall be expected to know the difference between an address generated by my network printer that should not be seen from outside my network and one from a pc that should ?

So now even my network printer (toaster, fridge, whatever) needs a built in firewall with guaranteed bug fixes.

When was the last time you saw a printer or other device manufacturer fixing such security flaws in a timely manner ?

And this is progress ????

Auto configuration is a nightmare. I want to be alerted to the addition of any kit to my network and be given the choice to allow or disallow access to my resources before whatever it is starts to use the limited data allocation that is my internet connection, starts to print a copy of wikipedia or otherwise use resources that cost me time or money.

Before anyone chimes in with "Security Enhanced Neighbour Discovery" - find me a howto that shows the proper configuration of "SEND" that creates a secure network of Windows and Linux machines..... Go on... I'm not holding my breath......

As per the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains

There is only one fully autonomous train system in the world today. The Copenhagen Metro.

I have no experience of this system and would readily defer to someone who has or does use it.

Justice is not a matter of money.

Particularly when applied to the corporate world. No jail time no worries, kill someone, get caught, pay a fine that you probably have specific business insurance to cover.

For as long as the company's "death" rate does not cause the insurance to cost too much, then it's business as usual.

Proving liability in the first place is likely to be troublesome, as these are likely to be closed systems, can a private individual gain access to the source, schematic or datalog to verify the cause of an accident ? Or do we just trust without verifying the makers ?

Asking for a system that can not only track, but identify correctly at speed from a moving platform everything that could cause it to alter it's maneuvering is a bit much. Particularly when you need to take into account variable levels of light, weather (rain / fog / mist).

"That is not to say that the computer couldn't easily have a decent amount of situational awareness"

Predefined "caution areas" are so far from being situationally aware it is not funny. For an autonomous system, it has to be "aware" at all times. In order to be aware it needs to know not only "Where are things in relation to me ?" and "How are they moving in relation to me ?" you also need to know "What are these things ?" and knowing these answers gives you input into the "How are these things likely to behave in relation to me ?" question.

For our current systems we can know in realtime faster than human reflexes, the where and how things are moving questions. What we have difficulty with is the "what" - is it a manikin, a human a statue or a large dog on it's hind legs ? This is a question that we cannot currently compute in realtime. Hell we can't even reliably discern a dog from a cat with our current technology.

Even an over cautious system is worse than no system as every hesitation or slow down due to over cautious behavior has huge ramifications in the overall traffic flow.

And if it is so possible - why have we not got autonomous trams or trains? Surely as there are no "turns" and fewer human interaction areas these should be the first to be experimented with, before moving into areas with higher degrees of mobility, and greater risks to the public should a vehicle "crash" in any sense of the word.

I doubt that we are within 50 years of having the combination of the stability of our existing embedded systems, with the computing power and complexity required.

We are even further away from the programming paradigms and AI models that will allow us to build systems such as these that need to be able to cope safely with even the most unlikely events.

Dealing with pedestrians of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities appearing from the side of the road, stepping out, possibly from between parked cars, will be one of the tougher sets of tests.

Having to identify not only the potential for danger, but also recognizing when it is safe as the individual is loading the boot of their car and not about to cross the street.

"Seeing" is but one part of an incredibly complicated system, understanding - comprehending so as to properly adjust for potential future events is something else. "See" a ball bounce into the road in front of you - think child.... As an autonomous system, just how long should it wait for the ball to be collected before it considers it "safe" to proceed ? It can't exactly get out and move the ball itself...

I agree that the cancer figures are way out - should be more in the 1 in 30 range :
"Over one in four people die from cancer. Cancer accounted for 30 per cent of all deaths in males and 25 per cent in females.

The four most common cancers accounted for nearly half of the 127,800 deaths from cancer (including non-melanoma skin cancer) in England in 2007. Of these, 66,500 of the total were in males and 61,200 in females."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=915

However the road deaths are more accurate :
"The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 7 per cent to 2,946 in 2007 from 3,172 in 2006. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

As it would seem to be only Toyota that is affected I would consider this a Toyota specific system fault. Be that in their design or implementation, something is clearly different from that done by the other manufacturers.

To claim that it is "a glitch between the pedal and the chair" without considering that no other manufacturer has such a high incidence of this problem is short sighted at best.

"Thankfully computers won't get confused and stomp on the gas instead of the brakes."

This requires "expert systems" capable of recognizing, in real time, when it is safe to swerve to avoid one pedestrian, and unsafe when such a maneuver would kill two on the roadside rather than one in front. The code to handle that is going to be somewhat complicated, identifying "humans" in real time from any angle (are the two objects on the side of the road bins? or are they humans bent over tying their laces ?) is not a simple question to answer for a computer.

Computer VISION is one thing, SITUATIONAL AWARENESS is "a whole different ballgame".

And your computer never crashes ? Now put it in charge of your transportation.

Rather you than me when it kernel panics, blue screens or otherwise literally crashes.

My figures were from 2007 but in 2008 the UK's "Mirror" publication states :

"8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT."

Source : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/

It's a matter of acceptable risk, in five thousand different ways of dying only one involves a car.
For me that is a small enough risk not to loose and sleep over.

Why some people are scared by it I do not comprehend.

Where I live I stand the following risks...

1 in 2 chance of death from heart related problems.
1 in 25 chance of death from cancer.
1 in 5000 chance of death from road traffic accident (pedestrian or driver).

The percentage risk of death from road traffic accidents has not risen in the last ten years.

Better planning, requiring local bodies to consider the impact of new structures and sub-divisions of old, in regards to road capacity availability as a PRIORITY, would be a start. Further better planning for the location of the premises for local services rather than the focus on cost. Forcing businesses to have a set percentage of workers arrive via public transport is still another idea perhaps even prompting businesses to move to the workers rather than the other way around.....

Just not autonomous vehicles.

I think I would rather not be the CEO of the first company who's "autonomous" system exhibits "Toyota" like behavior.

The first avoidable death attributed to such systems should see the end of this nonsense.

I cannot however, argue with the ecologically friendly developments that this experiment will hopefully promote.

Oh so you're the lunatic that acts first thinks later - the next time you swerve watch out for the kid on a bike you did not see the first time you looked.

I hope modern tape drives are more reliable and accurate than the old DDS2 days.

I once had a situation where I had three IBM servers on my desk to commission. My boss told me "test everything" - I was young and reckless so I did.
Everything was great until I started testing the tape backup. Of the three machines -
"Machine A" would read it's own and "Machine B"'s backups, but not "Machine C"'s.
"Machine B" was happy with tapes from any of the machines.
"Machine C" could only read tapes from "Machine B" and itself.

Individually no single machine actually had a reportable fault, yet in combination they proved to provide a nightmare scenario.
We could not know if a particular backup from one tape drive was going to restore on a different drive. We wound up getting IBM to "tune" our drives into compatibility with each other, even then they would "drift" over time requiring regular checks.