How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?

Get real. Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government. "Grab your rifles and rise up" only works when you have the public at large passionately on your side. When that is the case in a modern republic, there are better tools available.

Um, what? Insane pseudoscience at its finest.

I was soclose to modding you up for an otherwise good technical explanation, until I got to this ridiculous last sentence. Oh well.

Needless, inane, editorializing in the summary, as usual. So sad. Especially when the article itself is concise, factual, and free of such nonsense.

I admit that the article doesn't go into any technical details, but the number of comments here that are completely ignorant of what formal verification is and reject that it is even possible is...disturbing. (See CompCert for a real-world example of this practice.) Since the article was so bad, I don't know what the team actually did, but "mathematically proven to be invulnerable to large classes of attack" is exactly the sort of prudent statement I would expect from someone who has done good work making a hardened system.

Is that a complete list of countries where homeschooling is a crime? If so, it's not a very big list.

For comparison, Wikipedia lists the following counties where alcohol is illegal: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, India (some parts), Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Not quite as many, but within a factor of two.

This piece is by the New York Times editorial board, not a politician. Would you propose no one talk about the power of money in politics, just because it affects both parties? I, for one, would prefer that people talk about the corrupting influence of money on the political process whenever it occurs, so that, maybe some day, enough people will be fed up with it to do something about it.

That doesn't mean I support a politician with big money backers using the fact that his opponent accepts campaign contributions as a cheap ad hominem, however, but that's not what this is.

I don't think that is a good technical solution. First of all, after everyone decides how best to change to protocol to use extended addresses, you still have the same problem of having to upgrade existing equipment. You say that is is just a "trivial mod," but it's not like implementing IPv6 is particularly difficult---rolling out any modification whatsoever will be about as hard as switching to IPv6. However, with your suggestion, the situation is must less predicatable for users during the transition phase. As it stands, if two hosts have routed IPv6 addresses, they can talk to each other over IPv6, assuming someone hasn't made a serious error. With the "extended address" scheme you propose, if I have an extended address and I try to talk to another host, how do I know if I should be able to? Does the other host support extended addresses? Does every piece of routing equipment between me and them support extended addresses? How would I know these things, and what's to stop the routing table from changing and breaking a previously working path?

This is not suitable for water safety, since you can't just drink alcohol to hydrate...

You are wrong. The Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund, for example, which is a very basic fund that does nothing but track the S&P 500 index, has had an average return of 11% since its inception in 1976.

IPv6 is designed with such a large address space specifically to make BGP tables smaller. One of the factors causing IPv4 tables to grow is that, since addresses are scarce, people are getting clever with how they allocate blocks, divvying things up very finely so as not to waste. Since BGP entries are by block, this creates many blocks that need routing. The IPv6 designers went with 128 bits of address not because they think they need room for 2^128 hosts, but because there will be enough room to divide blocks hierarchically and logically, "wasting" addresses all along the way. This will allow global routing tables to more accurately reflect the structure there is between ISPs, shrinking their size.

The GPL was a major model for software licensing long before the App Store existed. The burden is on Apply to ensure compatibility, but they clearly don't have any interest in doing so.

Per Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution,

Let's not dilute the word by using it for other bad things.

Apparently a lot, since it's currently modded "Insightful."