Oh, ok, you're just an idiot, then. Go look up the actual numbers involved in the IPv6 address space before you start calling people "hilariously dillusioned". Also, dillusioned isn't a word, I believe you were looking for "delusional".

Meanwhile, I hope you realize that even IPv6 isn't a permanent solution nor is it intended to be, right? It's a substantially larger block of addresses, but that doesn't mean the use of those addresses is going to last as long as IPv4.

Are you high, or are you just really, really bad at math? It's "permanent" in that human society would have to become something fundamentally different than any currently foreseeable form to even begin the possibility of exhausting the space, by which point computers as we know then would probably be obsolete anyway. IPv6 isn't some "640K should be enough for anyone" shortsighted type of thinking, we could literally give every atom in everyone's bodies its own address and still be nowhere close to using them up.

A new theory says Wikileaks is run by the CIA.

A new theory by people with styrofoam for brains, most likely. Take a look at how many people have US Top Secret clearances, especially with the expanded military/intelligence sector after 9/11, then look at how easy it is to publish things on the internet, and the only question is why this didn't happen even sooner in a big way.

But wait, common sense and rationality are just conspiracies by the Trilateral Commission! They've gotten to me too! OH NOES!!1

However it WILL be legal to divvy up the available bandwidth evenly and give every user a guaranteed minimum amount.

Dear god, do you know *anything* about telecommunications? If you want absolutely guaranteed bandwidth regardless of congestion, you're going to be paying something like T1 prices for internet service (around $300/month just for basic 1.5 Mbit). Service providers can estimate a certain amount of bandwidth under most conditions, but making it anything close to an actual guarantee under all circumstances requires a lot of redundancies, and provisioning for maximum theoretical usage by all clients at once rather than anything approaching real-world patterns. I'm sorry if actual reality strikes you as "bullshit arguments".


If you want to take market pricing out of it and socialize the entire infrastucture, that's a different matter, although that still has its own problems, and would be a huge undertaking either way.

Well, your simplistic and impractical opinions make me think you're incompetent to hold any job involving anything more complex than a toaster, and even then you'd probably get the darkness setting wrong.

Tootles!

Nothing in your writing style suggests he was in any way incorrect in implying that you're crazy.

You might want to fix that.

I was mostly on his side. Then I saw how you capitalized the first three letters of his name, and I was all like "whoa man, fuck this guy". You even threw in the word "sheeple", favored phrase of all who put forth unsubstatiated claims as the unimpeachable gospel. Your peerless rhetorical technique has won me over, sir!








...

Go die in a fire.

Your post is the worst formatted, least readable piece of tripe I've seen on the Internet in weeks. And I've been reading *youtube* comments. I'm going to move to Texas and vote against Ron Paul just because of you.

You're right, collapsing the entire global economy would have been far better than making some low-interest loans that we're mostly getting back.

Does this go doubly if "x" is actually, y'know, X?

Collective bargaining is a perfectly capitalist idea. Coercion isn't, but it's not like there hasn't been plenty of that on *both* sides of the employer/union relationship in the past. I think you're the one who may be confused/wilfully ignorant on the subject.

Er, most Ponzi schemes eventually collapse too. Doesn't mean they didn't fit the definition, or that the people near the top who knew what they were doing didn't skip out with most of the money before the collapse.

Investment capital has a purpose, but much of the financial system as it exists doesn't do anything except play complex games to funnel money to people who provide no actual use to society. The fact that it's got so many of our best mathematicians and physicists tied up doing pointless money manipulation because it pays so much better than more useful forms of research is kind of a shame as well. Short-term speculative thinking is potentially the death of everything capitalism's supposed to be good for.

Hurr durr.

Thank you for that cogent and insightful analysis! Now leave and never come back. 4chan is thataway ->

Thanks for "leaving it at that"! God forbid you provide any basic information on what you're talking about or why anyone should be interested.

Mod parent up. Really, we're sentient star shit that's managed to morph into apelike meat shells with a constant one-sided conversation going on inside. We live upon a tiny rock orbiting around an insignificant star located in a backwater group of stars found in a very average galactic cluster situated in a remote corner of the universe, and who knows how many other universes there may be out there? And people think *we* matter? Hah!! How infantile! How droll! Self-importance? What a laugh. So that's about all I can do when I hear this stuff.

What makes you so sure we *don't* matter? It's odd you use relative terms like "insignificant" and "remote" when they don't really have much external meaning (particularly the latter, given that there's no center to the universe). We have yet to see any evidence of other sentient life (not that the reach of our detection extends very far, admittedly), and if we're the only way for the observable universe to be conscious of itself, I'd consider that pretty important. Just as there isn't anything imposing importance on us externally, there's nothing to deny it, either. "Important" is what we make of it, because how else would you define it?